Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Housing (Wales)

Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has held with the National Assembly for Wales Government on housing policy.

Keith Hill: Ministers and officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister liaise with the devolved Welsh Assembly Government at regular intervals. In particular, we held wide-ranging discussions with National Assembly officials in the preparation of our Housing Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has given that answer. I shall deem him an honorary Welshman for the next few minutes by virtue of his having studied at Aberystwyth university back in 1966.
	In housing policy, we often look far afield to try to find solutions, but does my right hon. Friend agree that Wales and England have much to learn from each other and that the innovative use of such things as starter tenancies, community housing mutuals and home buy schemes will provide useful icebreakers in his next chat over a cappuccino with his counterparts in the Welsh Assembly at Cardiff bay?

Keith Hill: Well, Duw, Duw. I am delighted to be named an honorary Welshman by my hon. Friend, and delighted of course with the high level of co-operation between my Department and the Welsh Assembly Government in pursuit of the Labour party's aims of expanding both the supply of homes for social renting and low-cost home ownership for first-time buyers. I welcome in particular the big improvements to homes in my hon. Friend's beautiful Ogmore constituency, resulting from the housing stock transfer in the Bridgend area. Of course, my hon. Friend and I know that in Wales and in England the James review would mean massive cuts in housing investment if the Tories ever got back to power.

Win Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the green pastures scheme run by Pastor Peter Cunningham in Southport? In The Times yesterday, it was claimed that there were no homeless people in the Southport area because of his scheme. He has bought some houses in Flint in north Wales, so can my right hon. Friend discuss with his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly whether there is something in that scheme? If so, it will certainly make a huge contribution to dealing with homelessness.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I did not spot that article in The Times yesterday, because my eye was caught by the front-page report of Labour's massive lead over the Conservatives in the opinion polls. Nevertheless, I undertake to follow up on the matter and find whether, working with the Welsh Assembly Government, benefits could be derived from that scheme.

Social Home Buy

Iain Wright: If he will make a statement on social home buy.

John Prescott: Our new home buy scheme will offer more social tenants the choice to own a home. Tenants will be able to buy as little as half their existing home at a discount, with the opportunity to increase their share and become full owners over time. Home buy will put home ownership within the reach of up to 300,000 more social tenants. Unlike right to buy, the social home stays in the public sector and the local authority will be able to invest the full 100 per cent. proceeds in new housing, rather than 25 per cent. under the present right to buy scheme. We will consult on the details of the scheme before Easter.

Iain Wright: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's comments because social home buy provides people on low incomes with a real stake in their home and their communities. It provides a great opportunity to regenerate areas of low demand and exclude unscrupulous and profiteering private landlords. Does he agree that the siting of such schemes and homes is vital? I am thinking particularly of previously run-down town centre areas. Social home buy needs to ensure that such areas once again become vibrant places to live and that the doughnut effect of all new homes being located in the suburbs is avoided.

John Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, our policy since 1997 has been to achieve greater growth in towns. Our first job was to reverse the increase in out-of-town shopping, which we have done, and for the first time more retail shopping is now being done in town centres than outside towns. That has brought a new lease of life to the centres of cities and towns. The home buy policy, which is our current housing policy, as well as the brownfield policy and sequential testing have all led to exactly what my hon. Friend wants—the rebirth of towns, for which he is a doughty champion, especially in Hartlepool.

Caroline Spelman: At the heart of the Government's plans to solve the housing crisis is the provision of cut-price houses for £60,000 each. The Swedish retail giant, IKEA, has a name for properties of that sort: it calls them Bokloks. Given that the land that they would be built on has already been earmarked for sale by the Chancellor and the definition of "key worker" is at best muddled, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the term "Bokloks" just about sums it up?

John Prescott: Once again, the hon. Lady shows her ignorance of what is actually happening. If she had gone to the sustainable development conference, she would have seen the £60,000 house on display. It was a wow at that conference. The industry told me that it could not be built. We not only built it and displayed it at the conference, but it has now gone to Allerton Bywater and will be part of the development of a pit site of houses available at £60,000. It is a reality, and a lot of people who want to buy their homes welcome the fact that we have thought of new ways to provide affordable homes. That contrasts very well with the press report that I have seen in Kent on Sunday that the hon. Lady's first statement on housing arising out of the James review was that she would cancel the plans to build 130,000 new homes in Kent. That kind of message to the people in Kent and the south-east who are desperate for homes shows quite a contrast with what we are trying to do.

Edward Davey: The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the size of the discount for social home buy is crucial in understanding what that policy means and how it will operate, and he is rightly consulting on that. However, will he say now who will pay for the discount? Will it be the housing association or the taxpayer? If it will be the housing association, does he accept that social landlords will end up building fewer affordable homes, when we need more? If it will be the taxpayer, what provision did the Treasury make for that in the spending review?

John Prescott: The financing is the same as we had before. If the housing association pays, it will be compensated by the Housing Corporation, whose funds come from the Government. There are varying amounts of subsidies, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The right to buy subsidy can range up to £40,000, which is the reason why we have lost 1.8 million houses from the public housing sector. The right to acquire subsidy is down to £16,000. As he rightly says, we are consulting on the subsidies involved, but it is important that by allowing people to buy equity in such situations, they can afford the mortgage price, and that is available to about 300,000 more people, whereas if I had extended the right to buy to the right to acquire situation, it would have benefited only 60,000 people. We are giving more choice to more people and meeting their demands.

Lawrie Quinn: Will the consultation that my right hon. Friend has announced on this welcome policy also allow people who live in rural areas who are equally under pressure in trying to get the first foot on the ladder and very much in need of good social housing to be included in the roll-out of the policy?

John Prescott: Yes, those people certainly will be included. In fact, one of the great difficulties of the previous Administration's policy on rural housing was that they limited it in certain circumstances where they believed that there was a housing crisis. The houses were supposed to be available to people in the local area. The trouble was that the younger people usually did not have the money to buy the houses, which usually went to people who lived in the area who used them for holiday lets. That is not acceptable. The opportunity extends to rural areas, but I go further and call on all local authorities to do the same. Indeed, to be fair, my mate the Mayor of London has just discovered an awful lot of plots of land that he can build on. Local authorities and Government agencies could go round looking for those plots of land and take this opportunity to build good, high-quality houses—by the way, the £60,000 house is up to the highest standards, saving energy and water—and give a real opportunity to people in rural areas.

Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend knows that one of the main issues that affects public sector recruitment in areas just outside London, particularly in Kent Thameside, is the cost of housing there. Will he show how his policies will make more houses available, particularly to those key workers in nursing, teaching and the police whom we so desperately need if we are to continue the regeneration of areas outside London?

John Prescott: Absolutely critical for sustainable communities is, first, that we should not cancel all the houses that are being built, which seems to be the Opposition's policy.

Edward Davey: It is not the Liberal Democrat Opposition's policy.

John Prescott: I mean the real Opposition.
	We will keep to the building programme. The second thing that we would do is to provide the opportunity for key workers to buy using that form of equity. Under the present key worker policy, we pay up to about £100,000 in subsidy to provide a house to maintain a hospital or teacher service. Frankly, that is not the best way to use money. With the equity shares that we are now using or by separating the construction price from the land price and using the Government land that we keep to our advantage, we allow key workers to have a mortgage price that they can afford.

Social Housing (London)

Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to increase the stock of council and housing association dwellings for rent in London.

Yvette Cooper: We are investing £1.5 billion over two years to provide more than 21,000 affordable homes in London, of which 10,000 will be social rented, with 7,000 for key workers and 4,000 for low-cost home ownership. London will also share in the additional £430 million of investment in new social rented homes by 2007–08.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome any new housing for people in London on low incomes or in desperate housing need. Does the Minister recognise that in inner London, especially, there is an absolute crisis due to the falling supply of council housing because of the right to buy and the small number of housing association properties being built? Many children live in disgracefully overcrowded conditions, but the only alternative that people are given by councils is to go away from London, and thus away from families, jobs and education. Does she realise that there is a crying need to invest in homes for rent for people in desperate housing need so that they can remain in their local communities rather than being forced out by wealthy, upwardly mobile people coming in?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there is a need for additional investment in social housing in London. That is an extremely important issue, which I why I am surprised that there are only four Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber for our discussion of it.
	My hon. Friend referred to the need to provide affordable housing. We are increasing the rate of new social house building throughout the country by 50 per cent. over the next few years and we will shortly announce what that will mean for London. He is right that we also need to provide assistance for key workers and we are doing that to support our public services.

Mark Field: Is it not the case that all housing in London is now less accessible and affordable than ever, thanks in no small part to the Labour Government's property taxes? Does the Minister realise that, since 1997, average stamp duty in London has risen from £1,280 to £9,296? What plans does she have to end that blatant discrimination against those who live in our capital city?

Yvette Cooper: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman is suddenly worried about housing in London, given that his party wants to cut the housing budget by £1 billion. When we accused the Conservatives of wanting to cut the budget by £400 million, they denied it, but that was because they actually wanted to cut it by £1 billion, as the James review says. The Conservative Front Bench must realise that houses cost money and we must invest in new houses. It would be utter madness to make the cuts that they propose.

Social Housing

Bob Russell: How many of the affordable rented houses to be built over the next three years will be council houses.

Nick Raynsford: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be providing 75,000 new social rented homes over the next three years to 2007–08. Of those, we estimate that more than 3,000 will be provided by local authorities.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister, because the 3,000 council houses that he announced will match the 3,000 that new Labour has built in the past eight years, which is in stark contrast to the 350,000 that the Thatcher Government built over an eight-year period. Bearing in mind the success of the Attlee, Callaghan and Wilson Governments in building hundreds of thousands of family council houses, why is new Labour hostile to council houses through its systems of management, ownership and new build?

Nick Raynsford: We are not. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Government's considerable investment in improving the stock in his area. We have invested £35 million to support the arm's length management organisation in Colchester, which will bring all the council houses in the area up to a decent standard by 2007. He would better serve his constituents if he argued the case for improving the condition of existing homes. He has forgotten that the Government inherited 2 million council homes in poor condition and one of our proudest achievements is bringing 1 million of them up to a decent standard.

Clive Betts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must not only build more affordable houses, but protect the affordable housing stock? Does he accept that the housing market has changed significantly in the past few years in areas such as Sheffield? As house prices have risen dramatically, more people have tried to rent and more have bought their council houses. The number of right to buys has gone up from about 400 in 1997 to more than 2,000 last year, which has created much longer waiting times. Will he consider extending the discount limits on the right to buy that apply to certain areas of the south to parts of the north in which there are real housing market pressures?

Nick Raynsford: I had an agreeable visit to Sheffield recently and was delighted to see the impressive progress that is being made in renovating the existing stock and learn about the successful ALMO. I was also told about the opportunities for helping tenants to get an appropriate home through the choice-based letting scheme. My hon. Friend will know that people now want a range of choices and it is right that we should provide for people seeking good quality homes to rent, for those seeking homes to buy and for those seeking equity shares.
	On right-to-buy discounts, my hon. Friend knows that the Government have taken steps to ensure that people should be able to acquire a home if they want to with a discount, but we also need to ensure that that is value for money, and that remains our objective.

Nicholas Winterton: I think that the Minister may be able to anticipate my question, which is straightforward. Does he believe that local housing authorities—that is, those that manage council housing, such as Macclesfield borough council, which by the way is debt-free—should be treated on exactly the same basis as registered social landlords? At the moment, they are not. Macclesfield is being forced to transfer its housing stock because the Government will not allow it to retain adequate revenue to keep to the decent housing standard. Will he look at this request, because I believe that council housing is important?

Nick Raynsford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that council housing is important, but equally important is ensuring that housing is brought up to a reasonable standard. That is why we have required all housing authorities to carry out an option appraisal to look at the best way of ensuring that their housing is brought up to the decent homes standard in a reasonable period. I should have thought that he, like other Members, would want to support proposals that would achieve the decent homes standard in the quickest way, whether that is through retention by the local authority or a stock transfer to a registered social landlord. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently visited North Wingfield in my constituency, in connection with its pathfinder scheme, which hopefully is making progress. Would one of the Ministers on the Front Bench like to revisit North-East Derbyshire? There is a place called Clay Cross, which has a great deal of experience of council housing and we would really like to get into detail with Ministers about the future of council housing and the role it should play in Government policy.

Nick Raynsford: I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend is getting an answer from me rather than from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I paid a visit to Derbyshire early in the lifetime of this Government and saw the terrible consequences of the dereliction by the previous Government, particularly in a number of former mining areas which had been abandoned and were disgracefully run-down. This Government have been investing not just in improving the quality of housing but in regenerating many of those former mining areas, including north Derbyshire, and I am proud of the record of trying to improve the conditions and prospects for people in such areas.

John Hayes: If this Government's housing policy was not so tragic it would be funny. It combines dictating where people should live with the provision of low-value prefabs, like a mixture of Chairman Mao and Maplin's holiday camp. But what is not funny is that the Government are building half as many social houses as the last Conservative Government did and, under Labour, 100,000 people are stuck in temporary accommodation. Does the Minister understand that his Government's failure to build social housing deprives desperate people of the homes that they long for and that their only hope is his and his colleagues' swift and enforced return to the Opposition Benches?

Nick Raynsford: What a risible contribution from a party with a disgraceful housing record and a current policy of cutting £1 billion out of housing investment while pretending that it can somehow offer more, even though it opposes the Government's actions to ensure that housing needs are met and has done nothing to support the improvement of the appallingly substandard council housing that it left as our inheritance. The Conservatives would serve the country better by a period of silence on this subject.

Asset Inequality

Brian Iddon: What effect he expects the five-year plan will have on the level of asset inequality.

Phil Hope: Our five-year plans will help to reduce asset inequality by offering more choice and fairness in housing, including new proposals to allow thousands of tenants to buy a share in their home, by recycling public assets, by tackling disadvantage and by promoting more prosperous regions.

Brian Iddon: Has my hon. Friend seen the Shelter report "Know your place" on housing wealth and inequality? Is he as concerned as I am that, if action is not taken urgently, in 30 years' time the 10 per cent. of children in Britain's wealthiest areas will be in families that own more than 100 times the housing wealth of the 10 per cent. of children born in the poorest areas of the UK?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to highlight those inequalities in assets, which is why the five-year plan published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is called "Sustainable Communities: Homes for All". It contains new measures to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder and to extend home buying so that council tenants and tenants of social landlords—up to 300,000 people—have an equity share in their own home. Those are radical proposals to redistribute the assets of this country to help the poorest the most, unlike the policies of the Conservatives, whose £1 billion cut in housing would deprive those poor communities of the housing that they desperately need.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the Shelter report shows that home ownership—for those who have been able to do it—is a major factor in the growing inequality in this country? Is he also aware that his policies for social buy and affordable housing are welcome in Coventry, where I can assure him and his policies of a warm welcome and a total rejection of the Conservatives' proposed cuts of £1 billion?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that 100 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of the new assets is reinvested in housing. Home buy will help social landlords to deliver new social homes for homeless households and others in priority need of housing. I am delighted that things are going so well in Coventry. I just hope that its people remember that when it comes to making a choice in a few months' time.

Housing Market (East Lancashire)

Gordon Prentice: What assessment he has made of the progress made by Elevate, the housing market renewal pathfinder in east Lancashire.

John Prescott: Elevate has made a good start in dealing with the long-term problems of low housing demand in my hon. Friend's constituency and across east Lancashire. We have allocated £68 million to Elevate for the period up to March 2006 and I expect the levels of both public and private investment to increase in future years. This investment is in addition to the extra funding we are already making available to east Lancashire through our decent homes and neighbourhood renewal programmes.

Gordon Prentice: That is good news, but surely one of the great ironies is that house prices drift up as speculators move in and buy up properties, hoping to make a killing. I know that we live in a nasty, capitalist world, but is there anything we can do about that?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, bearing it in mind that houses could be bought in his area, and, indeed, in Oldham when I visited it recently, for £1,500. That is a collapse of the housing market and many houses are empty. If we are to make those communities decent and sustainable, some houses will have to be knocked down because they are unfit to live in and other areas will have to be improved, with green space provided. We are trying to create sustainable communities in which people are proud to live. One of the consequential effects of that is that house prices will rise from under £1,500.

Student Housing

Lynne Jones: What problems he has identified in communities where a large proportion of residential property is occupied by students.

Yvette Cooper: The Government are funding a study to look at the impact on local communities of an expanding student population resident in the area. It will report this spring.

Lynne Jones: Students bring vitality to an area and attract new business, but I am glad that the Government are beginning to recognise the difficulties that arise from a transient population. Will my hon. Friend introduce planning measures such as those being implemented in Northern Ireland to control the density of houses in multiple occupation, especially small HMOs, which are the norm in Selly Oak, and ensure that those areas get their share of neighbourhood renewal and other funding to recognise their special needs, which are not included in the normal indices of deprivation?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there can be pressures in areas with high student populations. We recognise that. She will also know that it is difficult to address the problem through national planning rules because the pressures that arise are often local. She may be interested to look at the work being done in Leeds, which is attempting to find ways to address concerns about these issues. We will be watching its progress.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ross Cranston: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 February.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Ross Cranston: I want to ask my right hon. Friend about identity cards. All the evidence on the doorstep and on the phone in Dudley, North is that more than 80 per cent. of people support ID cards. Obviously, they do not want a "Show me your papers, please" society, and that is not what is being proposed. The one issue raised with me is cost, in particular to the less well-off. May I ask for an assurance that the cost of ID cards will not be disproportionate for the less well-off?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. and learned Friend makes is right. It is important to realise that the cost of going to biometric passports, which we should do because other parts of the world are doing so, will be about £70. The additional cost of the ID card is only about £15. That is why it represents a sensible way of proceeding. In our view, identity cards, with the new technology that is available, are necessary in the fight against illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism, and in order to protect our services. Their introduction is the right thing to do and I hope that, rather than facing both ways, all the Opposition parties will support us on that proposition tomorrow.

Michael Howard: Last week the National Audit Office said that the Government had spent nearly £900 million on improving behaviour in schools and reducing truancy, but as we know, behaviour in schools has not improved and truancy has increased. Was the money well spent?

Tony Blair: The amount of money that was spent on truancy specifically was a tiny proportion of the £860 million. Let me explain how it was spent. The vast bulk of it was spent on pupil referral units, in order to educate pupils excluded from schools. When we came to office, there were only 7,000 such places, many of them for only a couple of hours a week. There are now 13,000 such places and those pupils get full-time education. Yes, that money is well spent.

Michael Howard: But large numbers of children still do not spend all the school day in pupil referral units, as the Prime Minister well knows. Last week we had an Ofsted report saying that nearly one in 10 secondary schools have unsatisfactory levels of behaviour, and the number of schools where behaviour is unsatisfactory shows no sign of reducing, so the money is clearly not well spent.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister about something else. This week the Public Accounts Committee said that £500 million could have been saved if the Government had managed the surge in asylum applications in 1999 and 2000 more efficiently. Was the PAC right?

Tony Blair: First, I should like to go back and answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about truancy. He cited the Ofsted report. Let me give the quotation in full:
	"Parents in England can and should take heart at the considerable improvements in our education system over recent years. We have made a move from a system that educated a few superbly and the rest indifferently to one that is attempting to educate everyone very well"—
	the difference between Tory and Labour policy.
	As for the report on asylum, the allegation is that instead of spending the money on removals we should have front-loaded it to deal with applications. We believe, however, that increasing the proportion of removals is also a very important way of getting asylum applications down, which is why we do not agree with the report. The difference between this Government and the administration over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally presided is that in 1996 about 5,000 asylum seekers were removed and in 2003 it was 18,000—not good enough, but a darned sight better. Before people talk about the numbers, let me also tell him that the latest asylum figures indicate that when he was Home Secretary applications went up 50 per cent. and the numbers were roughly what they are today.

Michael Howard: If there are fewer asylum seekers, obviously fewer will be removed. It is no use the Prime Minister trying to throw back to the past. The permanent secretary at the Home Office said:
	"The truth of the matter is that we got into real difficulties at the end of 1999."
	Now let us get back to the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that this Government have wasted. Two weeks ago, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that taxes would have to increase by £11 billion if there were another Labour Government. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would not put up the top rate of income tax. Will he give the same pledge on national insurance contributions?

Tony Blair: First, I want to return to the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—[Interruption.] Oh yes, just to pin him down exactly. He was saying that the proportion of people removed to the numbers of asylum seekers was the same. Wrong. Actually, he only ever managed to remove about two in 10 failed asylum seekers. The figure is now five out of 10—yes, a long way to go, but a lot better than his system.
	Secondly, no. We will make our commitments on tax plain at the time of the manifesto, as we have done before. While we are talking about waste, though, let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman about waste that this Government have never incurred—the waste on the poll tax, the Black Wednesday waste, and the waste of 3 million unemployed when he was Employment Secretary. Yes, we never engaged in that waste, and we never will.

Michael Howard: It is no use the Prime Minister talking about keeping his tax pledges for the manifesto, because he gave one yesterday, and everyone now knows that yesterday he gave a pledge on the top rate of income tax and today he has refused to give a pledge on national insurance contributions. So billions of pounds have been wasted, taxpayers are not getting value for money, and everyone knows that taxes would go up under another Labour Government. Is it not now clear which tax it would be?

Tony Blair: I will tell the House what is clear. There was one party that gave a pledge that it would not put VAT on fuel—a specific election pledge—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party voted for it, and if it had not been defeated in the House of Commons that would have hurt pensioners and some of the poorest people in our country.
	I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why we have been able to sustain a strong economy and put money into public services, and I do not accept that this money is wasted. When we have money going into extra teachers and nurses and better equipment in schools and hospitals, that money is not wasted. When waiting lists are not up by 400,000 but down by 300,000, that is not money wasted. When we have 2 million extra jobs and 1 million helped by the new deal, that is not money wasted. When we have the lowest inflation, mortgage rates and unemployment for decades, that is a successful economic policy, not the boom and bust that people remember.

Barbara Follett: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the bravery of two young firefighters, Michael Miller and Jeffrey Wornham, who lost their lives in Stevenage last Wednesday trying to rescue a resident from a blazing block of flats? Will he also join me in extending condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy?

Tony Blair: I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the whole House will want to join in paying tribute to the two firefighters killed tackling a fire in her constituency last Wednesday. They died doing an extraordinary and heroic job, and I know that we will all wish to send our sympathy and condolences to their families.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister asserted again a few moments ago that he saw identity cards as essential in the fight against terrorism, but given that identity cards did not prevent the Madrid bombings; that the 9/11 bombers travelled under their own identities; that they will not be compulsory in this country for 10 years; and that visitors to this country will not require them, how will they make such a difference to the fight against terrorism?

Tony Blair: The reason why this measure is supported not only by the Government but by the police and the security services is that people believe that, particularly when we have biometric passports and the biometric technology available, we can construct an identity card that gives us the best possible protection against crime and terrorism. No system will prevent all crime and all terrorism: the question is whether it actually enhances the security of our country. When this technology is available, and when we are going to apply it in any event to visas and passports, it seems to me to make sense to use it to give us an identity card and bring us in line, frankly, with best practice around the world.

Charles Kennedy: But the Prime Minister must recognise that 10 million people in this country, many of them pensioners, do not possess a passport and do not have the intention or the need to get one in future. Under his proposals, those 10 million will be required to travel distances to centres to have the tests carried out, and then to pay for the privilege. That is a further reason why we will oppose identity cards tomorrow, as we have before—unlike some others.

Tony Blair: It is for that very reason that we have said that the Identity Cards Bill is enabling legislation. We have always made it clear, under pressure from all quarters in the House, that before there is a final move to compulsion, there will be a rigorous evaluation and a chance for this House to debate it again, but the Bill allows us to get this project under way. I believe that many people now recognise, particularly, as I say, with the possibilities of the new technology, that we can genuinely make a difference to our own security, to the fight against crime, and to the protection of our public services. In the world in which we live, where there are people who will cross borders to a far greater degree than ever before, and organised crime and terrorism are far more sophisticated than ever before, I do not think it is wrong or a breach of anyone's civil liberties to say that we should have an identity card. Most people carry some form of identification anyway. I think it is long overdue, and we should get on and do it.

Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit the Rutherford Appleton laboratory in my constituency to see the new Diamond synchrotron, which is nearing completion there? It is the biggest single investment in the history of British science, made by this Government, and it is a very apt symbol of the commitment that this Government—and the Chancellor and the Prime Minister—have made to the future of British science.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The synchrotron is a very important innovation indeed, and I can assure him that the increase in the science budget, which is a vital part of this country's future prosperity and competitiveness, will be maintained under this Government.

Richard Bacon: The former Home Secretary said that there is no obvious upper limit to immigration, and the current Home Secretary agrees. What does the Prime Minister think?

Tony Blair: As I have said on many occasions, I do not believe in the quota system that would be applied by the Conservatives. We should have a system whereby we welcome in people who are genuine refugees and people whom our economy needs to work here, and whereby we tackle and weed out the abuses. That is far more sensible than the arbitrary quota system that the hon. Gentleman supports, although he cannot actually tell us what the number is.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to assure the House and the rest of the world that he intends to continue an engagement with Iran, rather than joining in any American-led military attack or military threat towards Iran, either in the near future or the distant future?

Tony Blair: We are pursuing the policy of engagement, which we have conducted with France and Germany, and indeed with the United States' full support. I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is important also to make it clear to Iran—I hope this is a message that he will join in sending to the Iranian Government—that it cannot breach the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency and cannot develop nuclear weapons capability. That is the very clear wish of the entire international community. I happen to believe, however, that it can be pursued by diplomatic means of engagement.

Michael Howard: Under the proposals that the Home Secretary announced on Monday, will net immigration rise or fall?

Tony Blair: The abusers will be weeded out, and as a result of the end of chain migration, the numbers will probably fall, because it will be clear that those who come in either abusing the system or without being covered by the restrictions that the Home Secretary is placing on them cannot settle here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for a fantasy island for asylum seekers—again, it might be nice to know where it is—and literally halving the immigration service budget will simply make the problem worse.

Michael Howard: I am interested that the Prime Minister has again raised overseas processing centres. I have a letter from him to the President of the European Council. It reads:
	"Dear Costas,
	I am writing to ask for a very short discussion at the Brussels European Council . . . of an idea we have been developing . . . asylum seekers arriving in the UK and other EU member states could be transferred to a transit processing centre where their claims would be assessed . . . The centre would be located outside the EU."
	So the Prime Minister is interested in overseas processing centres, too. The difference between us is that he will do it only with the EU, and we will do it on our own; and he is all talk, and we will take action. Is not the difference between us the fact that we will impose an annual limit on immigration and he refuses to do that, so that only a Conservative Government can be relied on to bring immigration under control?

Tony Blair: First, the letter to which he refers was publicised at the time. Let me point out the two important differences. The vast majority of people claiming asylum do so now not at port but in country. They could never be covered by any processing centre. In any event, neither all the other countries in the European Union nor the United Nations could agree on a way forward. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman: which country is prepared to take Britain's asylum claims and process them? There is no such country. That is why, for the four years when he was Home Secretary and asylum claims rose by 50 per cent. and applications took 20 months to handle, he never did any of that. If it was such a good idea, why did not he do it?

Gerald Kaufman: Since my right hon. Friend has stated that bringing about peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis ishis top international priority, will he take encouragement from the developments that reflect his determination and pressure? Will he also ensure that there is no backsliding by any of the parties involved? Since he has spoken of it as a priority of his premiership, may I congratulate him on breaking the record of my old boss, Harold Wilson, for length of service as Labour premier?

Tony Blair: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. The middle east peace process is at an important juncture and I hope that it will be possible to make progress. Yesterday's meeting was of historic importance, but it is important that we do everything that we can to build on it. I greatly hope that the conference that we shall call and hold in London in early March allows us to give the Palestinians the plan that they need, so that when Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the west bank happens, they have what they need in terms of the beginnings of an independent viable state. Only if that can be agreed have we any chance of reaching the solution that I think everyone wants: two states, with a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state, living side by side in peace.

Paul Tyler: Does the Prime Minister recognise the authorship of the following promise, made just before the 1997 election?
	"The party I lead will carry out in government the programme we provide in our Manifesto beforehand. Nothing more, nothing less, that is my word."
	Does he recall that that immediately followed a firm commitment to direct elections to the House of Lords and a firm commitment to a referendum on a fairer electoral system for the House of Commons? Which of those two broken promises does he now most regret?

Tony Blair: As I recall, we set up a commission under Lord Jenkins that gave us various options for electoral reform. In respect of the House of Lords, I have come to the conclusion that the only way we are ever going to get House of Lords change is if there is an agreement in this House on a free vote. The fact is that there are different views right round the House on the best way to reform the House of Lords, but I think that that is the more sensible way through.

Iain Luke: I welcome the decision by the Ministry of Defence to increase the death in service payment from April this year by four times the pay level of the deceased. Will the Prime Minister consider backdating the payment to the time of the outset of hostilities in Iraq, so that the families of the servicemen who have given their lives in the supreme sacrifice for their country will get the benefit of that payment?

Tony Blair: Once again, let me pay tribute to the work that our servicemen and servicewomen have done in Iraq. It has been quite superb. I said yesterday to the Liaison Committee that a discussion now has to take place in Government. We are reviewing the compensation payment arrangements and I hope that we can make an announcement on that shortly.

Adrian Sanders: Since the privatisation of the water industry, 30 per cent. of the nation's coastline has to be cleaned up by 3 per cent. of the nation's population. Consequently, water bills are disproportionately high in the south-west region, and they are going to increase. Will the Prime Minister meet a delegation of south-west Members to look at ways of mitigating the impact of the nation's highest water charges on some of the lowest-income households in the UK?

Tony Blair: I am always content to meet people to talk about issues such as these. Of course, this is a question of balancing the amount of money that has been put into the water industry and the investment that is there, with the necessary quality controls. I am not saying that the situation that the hon. Gentleman described does not exist or cause concern in the south-west—I know that it does. On the other hand, it has caused concern for a considerable period. The difficulty is that this will, in the end, be a question of finance, and of ensuring that we did not disadvantage another part of the country, were we to change the system.

Stephen Pound: May I tell the Prime Minister that there has never been a better time to be a school pupil in Ealing, North? The 18 years of leaking roofs and cold comfort in the classroom have been banished by a massive schools programme. However, we have concerns for the future of the excellent excellence in cities initiative. What can the Prime Minister say to reassure me and Paul Patrick, the headmaster of Cardinal Wiseman high school, who has instructed me to appear in his study after assembly on Friday?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend and I should probably hope that such instructions and their consequences have changed since we were at school. The point that he makes about investment in our schools and classrooms is absolutely right: it has been of tremendous importance. We have only to go to a school in any constituency to see the investment that has gone in. The excellence in cities programme has also driven up results significantly, and it is important to recognise that we now have the best ever primary school results, the best ever GCSE results and the best ever A-level results. These are certified by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It is also important to recognise that every single penny piece of the additional investment was opposed by the Conservatives.

Alex Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at about the same time as he came to office, the Norwegian Government decided to devote a portion of their oil and gas revenues to a fund for future generations? That fund is now worth £80 billion—the income from it is greater than the Norwegian oil and gas revenues—and it stands as a permanent legacy for the people of Norway. We know that BP, Shell and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are doing very well out of oil revenues this year, to the tune of billions of pounds, but what permanent legacy for the people of Scotland from the oil and gas round their coastline can the Prime Minister point to?

Tony Blair: Surely what is relevant is a legacy of stable economies with low mortgages, low inflation, low unemployment, many more jobs and record investment in Scotland. None of that would have been achieved without this Government's actions. The worst thing that could possibly happen to Scotland is the separatism advocated by the hon. Gentleman, which would do immense damage to Scottish jobs, Scottish business and the Scottish economy.

Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police in Bexley on becoming one of the two safest London boroughs over the past 12 months? Residential burglary and motor vehicle crime are down by 18 per cent. and the number of special constables recruited is higher there than in the rest of London put together. Will he also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is just a question, not an Adjournment debate.

Tony Blair: First, I offer my hon. Friend a word of congratulation to the police, community support officers and the communities themselves on the work that they are doing. The increase in police numbers, backed up by community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, is making a difference to community policing in many parts of the country. That, combined with new laws on antisocial behaviour, is giving communities a chance to fight back for the first time. Those communities have to use the powers and extra investment, and as his constituency shows, many are doing precisely that, and to great effect, for their local communities.

Andrew Murrison: The Extradition Act 2003 allows UK nationals to be removed to the US without prima facie evidence and without reciprocity. If extradited, the so-called Bermingham three and my constituent, Mr. Giles Derby, being non-Americans, face little prospect of bail under US law. That means that they will have to spend many months in a Texas jail before they are finally brought to trial. Is it not about time that we stopped acting as America's poodle and revisited our unbalanced and unfair extradition arrangements with the US?

Tony Blair: The modern Conservative party never ceases to amaze me. First, the extradition agreement that we entered into with the United States was, of course, post-11 September, and I happen to think that it was justified and right. Secondly, as for talk about our being America's poodle, I think that it is time we recognised that the American or transatlantic alliance has served this country well. We should support it, and hon. Members who have some sense of this country's history and future should stop denigrating it and start supporting it.

Parmjit Dhanda: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfair for only people like myself with a Sikh background and those from the Jewish faith to receive protection by law from abuses of religious hatred? Does he further agree that we should do whatever is in our power to ensure that all religious faiths, including the thousands of Christians and Muslims in my constituency, receive similar protection? Does he also agree that both sides of the House should support that legislation?

Tony Blair: I hope people do. It is an anomaly when faith groups associated with a single race are protected from incitement to hatred, but multi-ethnic faith groups are not. The legislation was requested by key leaders in all the major faith communities and it has to be said that it prohibits the stirring up and the incitement of religious hatred. Prosecutions will have to be brought, of course, through the Crown Prosecution Service, with the Attorney-General's consent. I really think that the idea that it will interfere with comedy and the normal run of things as part of our way of life is absurd. The fact of the matter is that incitement to racial hatred has ended up with none of those problems. Incitement to religious hatred represents a change to the law that is long overdue. It makes the law fair. I hope that we can give sufficient assurances, as the Bill passes through the House of Commons, so that people realise that there is no intention to curb proper freedom of speech, but there is an intention to ensure that all parts of our community are treated fairly.

Archie Norman: Does the Prime Minister recall, prior to the 1997 election, making a pledge to do something about the anomaly of prescription charges for cystic fibrosis sufferers? Does he remember reiterating his support in the House both in 1999 and in 2001, and does he realise that many thousands of sufferers spend their entire lives struggling to live on expensive medicine? It was his words that gave them hope, and delivery is now a matter of trust.

Tony Blair: I understand the suffering that people go through and the need for extra help for them. We are helping in different ways, through the extra investment going into the NHS. We must ensure that, whatever we do for one group of sufferers, we can justify in respect of other groups as well. That is the reason for the delay and hesitation, but we continue to keep the matter under review. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on this subject, but I assure him that we have put a lot more help into treating the sufferers of cystic fibrosis.

Clive Efford: The single regeneration budget money that has been invested in my constituency has allowed a flexibility in funding to meet the needs and aspirations of my local community. Sadly, however, many of the initiatives that have come from the local community face an uncertain future because SRB funding will come to an end in the next two years. Will my right hon. Friend investigate how we can provide some sustainability for those initiatives in the future?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right, and it is why we are looking at ways of sustaining that investment. However, it is worth pointing out that the SRB and the money going into the regeneration of local communities are having a tremendous impact. That is exactly why the point that he raises is something that the Government are looking at. I hope that we can find ways of ensuring that we protect as far as possible the money that is going into local communities and doing such a fantastic job for them.

NHS Funding

John Reid: With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about allocations to primary care trusts in the national health service in England.
	I am today allocating revenue resources to England's 303 PCTs for the financial years 2006–07 and 2007–08. PCTs have already been informed of their allocation for 2005–06, so they will now be able to plan for the medium term, knowing with certainty their allocation up to March 2008. I have written to all hon. Members with details of the allocations to the PCTs that serve their constituencies.
	This Government believe in the NHS. We believe in its founding principle that there should be equity of access, free at the point of need, for everyone. Furthermore, we believe that the NHS can be reformed and transformed as well as improved, so that health care can be delivered to the standards of, and in a way expected by, today's public. That is why in 2002 the Government outlined our plans for an unparalleled increase in expenditure in the NHS over the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08.
	Today, I can tell the House that I am allocating more resources to the NHS front-line services than have ever been allocated before—£64 billion in 2006–07 and £70 billion in 2007–08. That contrasts with £45 billion only four years ago. That means that PCT allocations will grow in 2006–07 by no less than 9.2 per cent., and in 2007–08 by 9.4 per cent. On average, PCTs will have, compounded, 19.5 per cent. more resources in 2007–08 than in 2005–06. The increases between 2003–04 and 2007–08 represent a faster growth in resource allocation than ever before in the history of our NHS.
	The distribution of those resources has had regard to four main principles under this Labour Government. The first is that the increase will allow the NHS to take significant strides in improving access to health services for everyone throughout the country. Secondly, places with greater need will receive an even greater allocation of resources. Thirdly, for the first time, this allocation will allow significant resources to be used for the prevention of ill health and for health improvement. Finally, there will be a floor to the allocation to each primary care trust today. No primary care trust will receive an increase in funding over the two years of less than 16.8 per cent. Not one primary care trust in England will receive less than a 16.8 per cent. increase over the two years.
	For the five years between 2002–03 and 2007–08, allocations to primary care trusts will increase by more than 56 per cent. In terms of real people, by 2007–08, £1,388 will be allocated per head, compared with £907 in 2002–03—an increase of 53 per cent. in allocated resources for every single man, woman and child in England. We have done more than just increase our investment; we have made the distribution of resources more fair than ever before.
	A key factor in distributing funding fairly is the count of the number of people served by each primary care trust. Since the last allocation round, the population data based on the 2001 census has been revised, so we now have a more accurate population count. In addition, the allocations that I am announcing today include projected increases in populations. That means that we are properly taking account of the challenges faced in areas of rapidly increasing populations.
	If allocations are to be fair, they must also be based on need. Following advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, I am making some improvements to the formula to provide the same access to health care where there is the same need, and to support the reduction in health inequalities. I have also changed the way in which funding for primary medical services is distributed to make that fairer. For the first time, the majority of funding for GP services will be allocated according to the relative need for primary care services. The formula that we are using reflects the most up-to-date and best measures of differences in need for those services. The House will be glad to hear—many hon. Members have made representations to me—that I have also tackled the unfairness inherent in some areas being significantly under target in terms of the previous resource allocation.
	Following the introduction of the new formula in 2002, we realised that, despite progress, some areas were still not receiving their fair share of funding. At that time, some areas were more than 22 per cent. below their fair share. We made some progress in reducing that unfairness in the previous allocation round, but despite that, in 2005–06 some primary care trusts are more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., and in one case more than 15 per cent., beneath their fair share. Such a disparity is unfair and unacceptable, so I have decided in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 allocations to accelerate progress towards a fair-share distribution. To reach that outcome, primary care trusts at the greatest distance beneath their fair share will receive more than those who were already receiving their fair share or more.
	With the allocations that I am announcing today, based on need and fairness, by 2007–08, no primary care trust in England will be 15, 10 or even 5 per cent. below target. Indeed, I am able to tell the House that under today's allocation no primary care trust will be more than 3.5 per cent. away from their optimum fair share of the allocation. That is as substantial a move as I can make commensurate with the stability of the whole system.
	Our general approach, therefore, has been to balance a significant and substantial increase in resources for every area, and for the PCTs of every Member throughout the House, with an even greater improvement in funding where there is greater need. No primary care trust in England—north, south, east or west—will receive an average increase of less than 8.1 per cent. Over the two years, that is an average increase of 19.5 per cent. for every one in England. That will ensure that all parts of the country will receive sufficient funding to see considerable further improvements in their health services.
	At the same time as providing a 19.5 per cent. average and an 8.1 per cent. a year minimum, the funding formula rightly moves more funding to where it is most needed. I have already identified 88 primary care trusts as those that need the most urgent action. Since those are the most needy areas, they will receive a higher level of funding than other areas. By 2007–08, the funding per person in a spearhead primary care trust will be £1,552, compared with a national average of £1,388.
	I can also tell the House, however, that by 2007–08, as a result of the fairer distribution, the 5 per cent. most needy areas and those facing the greatest need for funding, in both the north and the south of the country, will receive an average of £1,710 per person. The 5 per cent. most well-off areas with less need for funding will receive an average of around £1,190. That means that I am putting additional funding where it is needed to reduce health inequalities. That should help to ensure that by 2010 there will be a 10 per cent. reduction in health inequalities, as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth. We will also see further reductions in killer diseases. We have already reduced premature deaths from heart-related disease and from cancer by 27 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively in the past six years. By 2010, there will be a fall of at least 40 per cent., from 1997 figures, in death rates from heart disease and stroke, and a 20 per cent. fall in death rates from cancer.
	We also want to improve the experience throughout the NHS for all patients. By the end of 2008, for their planned hospital care, as a result of these allocations, all patients will be able to choose between a range of providers, including NHS foundation trusts and NHS and independent sector treatment centres. And because the investment announced today will be matched by the reform in working practices undertaken by staff, patients will be admitted for treatment in England within a maximum of 18 weeks from their first appointment with their GP to the door of the operating theatre, with no hidden waits. Having halved waiting times, we will halve them again and halve them once more for patients in England.
	In addition, we can move away from treating illness and towards preventing it and encouraging health improvement. These resources will also allow us to make progress on prevention towards the original vision of the NHS as a true health service, rather than just a sickness service. Today's allocations include public health funding of £211 million in 2006–07 and £342 million in 2007–08 to help make that happen. All areas will receive their share of this funding, but again, a higher proportion will go to the most deprived areas, including the spearhead PCTs.
	Of course, this is not all the funding available to deliver the health improvement agenda, but it is a significant proportion of it. It is being allocated directly to front-line PCTs to allow them to implement key initiatives such as improved school health and improved sexual health services. For example, we are providing funding so that by 2010, every PCT in England will be resourced to have at least one full-time, year-round qualified school nurse working with each cluster or group of primary schools and related secondary schools. And not before time.
	Our public services must respond to what the public want by giving quality care at the public's convenience. Under this Government, the NHS's founding principles will remain firmly in place and will be enhanced by today's investment, thus giving equal access free at the point of need. But the way in which the services are organised is being transformed, giving patients a more convenient, personalised and responsive service within a system that is not only fair to all, but personal to each of us. That is a key aim for today's NHS.
	The biggest ever investment in our national health service, the fairest ever distribution of resources and a massive programme of continued reform by staff will together give the increased capacity and diversity of provision that will offer patients faster access to better quality health services than ever before, all free at the point of need under a Labour Government. All those improvements are opposed by the Conservatives, who plan to divert money away from the NHS and to introduce for the first time into NHS commissioning charges for operations. Let the people make the comparison between the two offers and let them make their choice. I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am of course grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight—a typically generous 30 minutes—of the statement. It consisted of 25 paragraphs but he could have said it in one, because in fact, there is no extra money when compared with known planned NHS expenditure through to 2007–08. This is simply an attempt by the Secretary of State to divide the cake differently and—surprise, surprise—there is an election coming, so we are to have "spearhead" primary care trusts. [Interruption.] I wonder whether those trusts are located in the Labour-held seats that the Government are worried about.
	One pity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said it before and I will say it again: Members who shout are damaging only themselves, because I shall simply say that the Minister has delivered his statement and that the Opposition have responded. Those Members who want to ask supplementaries had better be quiet. I will be watching.

Andrew Lansley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the pities is that we did not get an opportunity to see the text of the statement, which includes sub-headings that the Secretary of State did not read out, until he had finished delivering it, because the sub-heading before paragraph 18 contains an important truth:
	"What the funding will deliver—inequalities".
	Yes; inequalities between different parts of the country. To defend Labour-held seats, the Secretary of State will take away money from primary care trusts that are running deficits today in order to promise jam tomorrow for his spearhead primary care trusts.
	The overall level of allocations to PCTs reflects the increase in NHS budgets, and to that extent no new money has been announced today. The NHS needs the assurance that under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government substantial increases in NHS budgets are planned. My right hon. Friends and I have committed ourselves to an increase of £34 billion by 2009–10 compared with the levels that we would inherit in the next financial year. We have made that commitment because we support the NHS and its values, which include the provision of comprehensive, quality heath care for all on the basis of need, not on the basis of ability to pay. We value the work done by NHS staff, and we intend to give them not only the resources, but the support and freedoms to ensure that they deliver the highest standards of care for patients.
	A key point is not only to promise, but to deliver high quality care for the 17.5 million people who live with long-term conditions. That will require substantial investment in primary care services, and as we set out to the House in our debate on 11 November, family doctor services are at the heart of that delivery. The Secretary of State said nothing about opportunities to develop family doctor services. Genuine reform is required to back up the development of standards with resources and to give general practitioners the power to commission services and to support patients' right to choose. At the same time, we should ensure value for money by cutting bureaucracy, which currently consumes many resources that should be in the front line.
	The Secretary of State's statement fails the test of reform. Over the next three years, for example, scheduled care in hospitals should increasingly be determined by patient choice, and GPs should exercise choice on behalf of patients, with money following the patient. Why does it make sense for that funding to form part of the PCTs' unified allocation in 2007–08? If GPs cannot manage the budget, they should not be expected to hold it, and if they have the power to commission services on behalf of their patients, they should receive their budgets directly.
	Through the development of the general medical services contract, we have learned that GPs have populations with long-term conditions, like the asthma and diabetes registers. Should we not progressively move money from the general demographic assumptions that underpin the Secretary of State's proposal to specific factors determining GP budgets? The Secretary of State discussed assumptions about need rather than actual need.
	The Secretary of State discussed cancer services, but the lack of progress in commissioning cancer services, which has been illustrated within the past fortnight by the Public Accounts Committee and Doctors for Reform, demonstrates that PCTs are not necessarily delivering progress on cancer services. A combination of clinical networks, GP commissioning and patient choice should deliver services more effectively. Those budgets also do not need to be routed through PCTs. The Secretary of State has failed to set out how NHS funding flows will be reformed. Instead, we have seen an old-fashioned exercise in dividing up the cake.
	I have a number of specific questions for the Secretary of State. The previous intention was to move to target allocations by 2010. Is that still the Government's intention? In this financial year, the combined distance from target of PCTs is £1.1 billion. How much does the Secretary of State propose to reduce that total figure by in 2006–07? How much will PCTs that are currently above target be expected to contribute? The Secretary of State implied that there is no ceiling, and therefore every other PCT must contribute to the floors. Will he tell us the percentage contribution towards floors from other PCTs?
	Last week, we heard that the Government are not incorporating 2001 census data in the local government finance settlement until 2006–7, but the Department of Health proposes to do so in the next financial year. Why are the Government taking one view on local government and another on health?
	As the Secretary of State will know, many areas have fast-growing populations. The removal of type 2 funding for general practice left a serious gap that the Department had to plug. The Secretary of State did not refer explicitly to the growth area adjustment, which is contained in the new formula. Will there be an ability to fund the costs of infrastructure not only in the growth areas designated by the Deputy Prime Minister, but wherever large increases in population occur; and will the money arrive in time to match the population growth? In Milton Keynes, the infrastructure has been insufficient to deal with the increases in population experienced up to now, and the PCT is running a projected £6 million deficit.
	The Secretary of State did not discuss the market forces factor, which continues to fail accurately to reflect NHS costs of provision in all areas. Has the Secretary of State considered moving from a general labour market approach to one based on benchmarked costs of efficient providers once the doctors' contracts and the "Agenda for Change" have been fully introduced? The Secretary of State should understand that promises of jam tomorrow are all talk, if at the same time NHS trusts are running deficits and the money that the trusts need is being eaten up in bureaucracy.
	The administrative costs of strategic health authorities are more than £600 million, and of PCTs, more than £700 million. By cutting bureaucracy in both, we can get sufficient money through to the front line to meet the £1.1 billion distance from target of PCTs today. Putting resources and accountability into the front line is essential if Government-imposed cost pressures are not to mean continuing deficits.
	Since the new year, one third of SHAs have published their forecasts for the end of this financial year based on figures from the end of December. The total forecast deficit from just nine SHAs is £227 million: all 10 PCTs in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are forecasting deficits; North East London SHA has a £22 million deficit in the year to date; Thames Valley SHA has a £41 million deficit; and Surrey and Sussex SHA is forecasting a £33 million deficit, half of which results from the working time directive, new contracts and the "Agenda for Change".
	In my area, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA has forecast a £56 million deficit. That deficit includes PCTs such as my local one, South Cambridgeshire PCT, which is currently 8 per cent. above target. It is forecasting deficits and is above target, but in the Secretary of State's fantasy world it has more money than it needs. Across the country, PCTs are running deficits, demonstrating that the formula is way out by comparison with actual need.
	The Secretary of State is promising money tomorrow while the NHS has deficits today. We could clear the deficit if the billions eaten up in bureaucracy got through to the front line. The Department of Health is imposing costs on the NHS with no idea of the effects. The statement does not deliver reform or urgently needed value for money, which it will be for us to do.
	I have one final point for the Secretary of State, but Labour Members, and particularly Manchester Labour Members, may be interested. The Greater Manchester SHA board papers state:
	"the year to date financial position for the Trust sector continues to worsen".
	They also state:
	"although trusts and PCTs are forecasting deficits, the SHA continues at this stage to report to the Department that overall financial balance will be delivered"
	for Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State does not know what is going on, and it is about time that he moved aside for a Government who do.

John Reid: I have waited a long time to hear with what ingenuity someone could turn a 10 per cent. expenditure increase into a bad news story. Today we have heard an attempt at that. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not Labour that is out of touch either with addressing people's needs or with improving the national health service; I fear that it is the Conservatives.
	I shall deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. As usual, there was a dig at vast administrative costs, bureaucracy and waste. There is always a sting in the tail, with an attack on the staff of the NHS—but Labour will defend them. I shall give a couple of figures. In fact, PCT management costs are 1.5 per cent. of total expenditure. The costs of senior managers in the NHS, who number about 38,000 out of 1.3 million staff, are between 3 and 5 per cent., which is about a quarter of the management costs in private health care and about one fifth of the administrative costs in the American health care system, so is it not time that we praised the NHS for its efficiency?
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of deficits, as he has done before. I have two things to say to him on deficits. The first is that they are forecasts: every year for the past few years there has been a forecast deficit in the NHS, but in fact over the past four years the NHS has been in financial balance at the end of the year.
	The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about forecast deficits, but I can tell him that the problem occurs when there are actual deficits. The last time there was a significant actual deficit—£500 million, twice the size of those forecast deficits, in a budget half the current size—was in the last year of a Conservative Government. In other words, the actual deficit then was three times higher than the forecast deficit the hon. Gentleman is worrying about now.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me if we would reconsider the market forces factor. We keep it under review, but as he knows, the market forces factor was identified by the resource allocation working party as far back as 1976, so it is not new. Its development is overseen by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, and it is the result of many years of analysis by academics. The population figures from the 2001 census that we are using are, first, more accurate and, secondly, adjusted to pay some degree of attention to forward projections. There are four areas, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and the Thames gateway area, and they will be glad to know that we are taking account of that projected need. I was asked whether deprivation would be taken into account. The answer is that the projections take account of actual as well as assumed need. I could go on at length about that but I do not think that we need to take up more time, because for the past five years we have taken independent advice on the matter.
	I finish on this point: the hon. Gentleman started off by challenging the methodology for, and thus the legitimacy of, the allocations. Does that mean that he intends to revisit them? Is he going to tell Members that these huge increases may be taken away from them? If so, he should say that today, because that will be another reason for people to be extremely careful about even considering voting Conservative when the election comes along. The truth is that under the plans of a Conservative Government, £1.2 billion will be removed from that expenditure: £4 million will be taken from every single PCT to subsidise the relatively well-off to jump the queue and go to the private sector if they can afford half the cost of their operation. That is an attack on the founding principle of the NHS, and I am sure that people out there will recognise the difference between investment in the NHS and an Opposition party committed to the virtual destruction of the ethos of the NHS.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. As ever with these statements, the devil is in the detail. In broad terms, the Liberal Democrats welcome the allocations announced today and the increased investment that they imply. We see it as our task to continue pressing the Government to make sure that the investment going into the NHS is spent as wisely as possible.
	The Secretary of State talked about primary care trust allocations. Can he tell us when he plans to make announcements about central allocations, too? He had a lot to say about improving public health and tackling health inequalities. In earlier proposals, he set out his plans for a partial ban on smoking in public places. If the intention really is to protect people's health, why does the health of customers and workers in pubs not need protection unless they are consuming food? How will that policy close the health gap between the richer and poorer areas of our country, which is, it seems, a Government priority?
	Given that the latest National Audit Office report found that many GPs were seriously worried about the effects of the Secretary of State's patient choice policy on equity in the NHS, can he tell us what measures will be taken to address the real concerns of practitioners up and down the country? Does he agree that the NHS at local level should have the maximum possible freedom to decide how best to meet the health needs of local people, and that meeting those local health needs rather than hitting politically dictated targets should be the priority?
	The Secretary of State said that there would be no more hidden waiting lists, but when will that be? Will he agree to publish, before the election, the hidden waiting times for scans and tests so that people can judge the Government's record for themselves? Will he also confirm that his target is that by 2008 up to 15 per cent. of procedures paid for by the NHS will be undertaken by the private sector? Does that not mean that in future the private sector will no longer simply be adding extra capacity to the NHS but replacing existing quality NHS provision?
	What assessment has the Secretary of State made of his targets for PCT budgets? Will he confirm that the guaranteed contract payments for independent treatment centres mean that they will be paid regardless of the work they do, and that that is why 73 per cent. of NHS chief executives say that that does not offer good value for the taxpayer? Will the Secretary of State tell us why he thinks that after eight years of Labour Government, top NHS managers describe his approach as political, prescriptive and bullying?
	More people are getting sicker in the NHS because of superbugs. More people are having difficulty in finding dentists on the NHS. More people are struggling to get appointments with GPs when they want them, and more people are waiting on hidden lists for scans and tests. That is the Government's real record, and that is what will count with our constituents.

John Reid: The estimate that up to 15 per cent. might be added to capacity, or might be private operations, is just that—an estimate; it is not a target and it is not being driven. It will depend on patient choice. We are expanding the NHS and diversifying the type of treatment, making it much more efficient. It is free at the point of need, and in addition we are buying in bulk to push the price down and to give the patient the choice of quicker access to services. That is precisely why we have halved waiting times, and why we have taken 340,000 people off the waiting lists that we inherited from the Conservatives. Ultimately, it will be the choice of the individual—[Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is saying from a sedentary position. If he is asking whether that is a substitute for NHS operations, I can tell him that when the Government came to power NHS operations were below 5 million, and that about 6.5 million operations will be carried out directly through the NHS, so we are not taking anything away. In addition, there will be another 500,000. That is good for patients. For heaven's sake, I wish that for once the Liberals would think of these things from the patient's point of view, rather than always from the producer's or the provider's point of view.
	For 60 years, no Government of either party have measured hidden waits, and we do not have the mechanisms to do so at present; but I have pledged that if the Labour Government are re-elected not only will we ensure that the maximum wait is 18 weeks, as opposed to 18 months under the previous Government, but that that will be the time for the whole patient journey. Previously, one third of the journey took up two years, we shall now pledge the time right through from the GP to the door of the operating theatre.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about local decision making. At present, 75 per cent. of all money is distributed to PCTs, and they take responsibility for it. He asked about GP front-line engagement. Yes, we need more GP engagement in a range of areas, including the introduction of IT, which is why, recently, I put not only more effort but £95 million into that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about workers in restaurants and pubs. They will be protected to the maximum where smoking is banned completely. No restaurants will allow smoking, but even in the minority of pubs that continue to allow smoking, there will be restrictions around the bar area to protect all workers.
	Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said when he started: he appreciated the 8.1 and 8.2 per cent. increases in his constituency—£35 million followed by £37 million. He was not in the least bit churlish, and he should not be, because he is getting an 8.1 per cent. increase. To put that in context, the person who was churlish—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Opposition spokesman—is actually getting a bigger increase: 8.2 per cent. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for his charitable and non-churlish response.

Kevin Hughes: I warmly welcome the statement and wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing with the fair shares initiative—it shows the clear difference between us and that lot on the Opposition Benches—but do the increases contain any special recognition for areas such as mine that are having difficulties in recruiting GPs?

John Reid: Not for the first time, we have extended the integration of the moneys provided for primary care services, including GPs, and I hope that that will help my hon. Friend's constituency. He may wish to know that in his case, the increases are 9.4 per cent. in 2006–07, and 9.3 per cent. in the following year, producing an additional two-year cumulative increase of 19.6 per cent., so his local services will have £21 million more. Those are the figures for the Doncaster, North area, and over in Doncaster, Central, there will be another £25 million—an even bigger compound increase of 19.7 per cent.

Malcolm Moss: It would be churlish not to welcome these increases, particularly in my constituency, but does the Secretary of State not accept that if my local PCT, the East Cambridgeshire and Fenland PCT, had received its proper funding allocation—it had a shortfall of £8 million last year alone—it would not now be colluding with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mental health trust in closing a 16-bed mental health in-patient unit at Alan Conway Court, Doddington hospital? Perhaps my constituents can take some comfort from the Secretary of State's statement today when he said, "We must give the public what they want."

John Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for going so far as to say "thank you" at one point. One of his PCTs is getting the third largest increase in the country.

Malcolm Moss: Long overdue.

John Reid: Yes, it may be long overdue, but for 20 years under the Conservative Government, such an increase was never given. The hon. Gentleman is now being given a 31.2 per cent.—[Interruption.] I shall repeat that, lest he miss it: one of his PCTs is getting a 31.2 per cent. increase. He gets up and says, "We should have had this before," but has he forgotten that he actually voted against the increases?

Ronnie Campbell: My right hon. Friend never mentioned dentistry. He will be aware that there is more dentistry in the private sector than in the health service, so can he tell us whether he is encouraging dentists to return to the national health service?

John Reid: Yes, indeed, I can. My hon. Friend is kind enough to point out that even the fairly huge aggregate figures that were allocated today do not include the £368 million extra that is being put towards our attempt to cope with the huge challenge of dentistry, particularly the fact that although there are more dentists, few of them want to do NHS work. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has been tackling that issue robustly. We do not pretend that it is easy, but I hope that it will be made easier by the fact that in my hon. Friend's area, Northumberland PCT will receive a £69 million increase over two years, which represents increases of 9.1 and 8.9 per cent.—18.8 per cent., when compounded over two years—so there are 69 million reasons why he and his constituents should feel that improvements in the NHS will continue in his area.

George Young: Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I welcome increased commitment to the NHS from whichever political party it may come. Is the Secretary of State aware that the two PCTs in my constituency are running at a substantial deficit, which is why, in turn, two hospitals were unable to become foundation trusts? Is he concerned about the gap between the rhetoric in Westminster and the reality on the ground in constituencies such as mine, where ill people read of financial recovery plans, ward closures, closed GP lists, fewer NHS dentists and a worse out-of-hours service? Is he not concerned that the increased allocation that he has just announced may simply be used to pay off the accumulated deficits?

John Reid: No, I am not concerned about that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I thought that I caught a "Thanks" just at the beginning of his remarks—and I am sure that he will welcome the extra £30 million for the Mid Hampshire PCT, which represents a compounded increase of just under 17 per cent. There is also another £34 million for the North Hampshire PCT, which represents a 17.7 per cent. increase. I do not believe that those increases will be spent on the deficit—I have talked about the difference between forecast and actual deficits—but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate what the local management in his constituency would have to think about if they knew that instead of getting such an increase, they were facing the equivalent of £24 million being taken away to subsidise the Conservative party's policy of the patient's passport, which would go to about 8 per cent. of his local constituents, and the 92 per cent. of people who depend on the NHS would be £24 million worse off, rather than £64 million better off.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend for this continued investment in the increased health care provision in the health economy in Rochdale. He will know that Rochdale has one of the most profoundly difficult areas in terms of poverty. The new hospital and the recent announcement of £35 million under the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—project represent much needed increased investment. However, in relation to the uplift going to the spearhead areas under the accelerated fair share scheme, are the Government looking at the areas that have been historically underfunded for the past 50 years that did not gold-plate their services but undertook them at cost, and at the effect that that is having on issues such as investment in mental health?

John Reid: As for whether we can help to compensate for historical deficits built up by decades of under-investment, even with the huge amount of money that we are investing based on deprivation, need, population growth and projected population growth, it is not possible to compensate everyone for what was effectively underfunding during the years of the Conservative Government. I am sorry that I cannot wave a wand and do that, but we are now giving fair shares. For example, my hon. Friend will find that her constituency is within 0.5 per cent. of the PCT target, because of a 19.6 per cent. increase, resulting in an accumulated £33 million extra over the two years 2006–07 and 2007–08. I hope that that will at least go some way, under this Labour Government, towards tackling the previous underfunding under the Conservative Government—although Conservative Members are apparently criticising this large investment today.

Edward Davey: I agree with our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that these increases are welcome, and far more generous than we ever received in Kingston, or elsewhere in south-west London, under the Conservative Administration. However, does the Secretary of State accept that Kingston is yet again at the bottom of the growth league for spending increases? For example, if Kingston hospital's budget had increased in line with health spending across the country, it would have £10 million more than it now has. He talks about fairness in health spending, but is he taking into account the massive increase in population in areas such as Kingston and the rest of south-west London? When will we get the health funding to match that increase in population?

John Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks, but he should have pointed out that his area will still be about 8 per cent. above target. If we compare the need, the population and the projected population of Kingston with those of others, the people there are better off because many others live in areas that are up to 3.5 per cent. beneath target. There is a £120,000 project to upgrade the operating theatre at Surbiton hospital in May to increase capacity, and work has been carried out on the day surgery at Kingston hospital. The hon. Gentleman's area was roughly 11 per cent. above target. It will now be about 8 per cent. above the target for identified need, and as it will get 8.1 per cent. increases in both years, he would be churlish to try to pretend that his constituents are not doing rather well. No doubt while he is complaining about that here, he will claim the credit for it back in his constituency.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Tamworth for today's excellent settlement of 9.4 per cent. this year and next year. I have no problem with that—apart from one small niggling issue. As he knows, my town is developing and has been accepting increased population numbers for many years. Our population will rise again this year. When he talks about money per head of population, is he talking about this year's population, or the population five years ago? Will he accept representations from me on behalf of my PCT so that we can get the figures right?

John Reid: The short answer is that we have updated the projected population figures. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend.

Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State will know that NHS dentistry has largely collapsed in Lincolnshire. Does he agree that a sensible way forward would be for the primary care trust to pay a premium to NHS dentists to open in constituencies such as mine, where it is now impossible for a person to register with an NHS practice? If he does not agree with that proposal, what positive suggestions can he make?

John Reid: This may astound the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do agree with that. We put more than £60 million into the access fund precisely to encourage people to do the sort of thing that he suggested. I have never pretended that we have perfection in the NHS, despite all the progress that we have made. We have a shortage of dentists, radiologists and radiographers, and we could do with more midwives. We have only started our building programme, and we still have long waiting lists, although they are almost 500,000 below their peak. Labour Members welcome any ideas, because we do not approach the matter dogmatically. We have already taken action similar to that suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this year.

Keith Bradley: I thank the Secretary of State for yet again recognising the historical inequalities in health care provision in the city of Manchester with a massive 15.5 per cent. increase in allocation for South Manchester, which will enable even better services to be provided in the new Withington community hospital, which opens in April. He is right to point out that the figures are based on the 2001 census projection. Will he confirm that they are now based on the 2001 census figures that had to be revised because of the failure of the Office for National Statistics to count the number of people living in Manchester?

John Reid: My hon. Friend has been an avid advocate for his constituents, as have our other Manchester colleagues. Although we cannot offer compensation for mistakes made in the past, the fact that we now use a more accurate and verifiable version of the population figures goes someway towards providing recompense. As he pointed out, there is a 15.5 per cent. increase for South Manchester, which is compounded over the two years at 28.2 per cent. Of course, Central Manchester is receiving 26.4 per cent. There will be an additional £113 million over the next two years for those areas, which I hope will be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Manchester.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State's statement said that the figures accommodated both current and future projected housing growth. However, if we look at the detailed lists, we see that Southend PCT, in the Thames gateway area, gets the bare minimum, while Castle Point and Rochford PCT gets only a fraction more. May I tell him, without rancour, that given the massive house-building programme envisaged for the Thames gateway by the Deputy Prime Minister, the increases, while welcome, are nowhere near enough to provide—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] They are not enough to take account of the scale of house building that will be required. May I, in all sincerity, ask the Secretary of State to reconsider?

John Reid: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the bare minimum, I take it that he means the 9.1 per cent. and 10.1 per cent. increases that he is getting. It is news to me that that is the bare minimum, especially compared with the amounts handed out in the years of the Conservative Government. I hope that he welcomes the £35 million extra for Castle Point and Rochford PCT and the £17 million for Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT. [Interruption.] I think that there was a nod over there, Mr. Speaker. We have again refined the formula to try to make it fairer. The four areas outlined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are precisely those on which we have been most engaged with the ODPM in trying to ensure that the figures are fair and take account of future development.
	If the hon. Gentleman is really worried about deficits, he should worry about the £24 million that would be taken from the two primary care trusts that I cited to subsidise his party's policy of the patient's passport. I hope that he is being honest enough to tell his constituents that that £24 million would be taken away from the money that the PCTs already have. Additionally, NHS Direct would be closed down, as would the primary care trusts, as far as I can see from the James report. All the work done by primary care trusts would thus have to be done by the hon. Gentleman's local general practitioners, but they would receive no extra money. Has he told his GPs that?

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend knows from first-hand experience how badly we need new money in Washwood Heath and Hodge Hill. He also knows from first-hand experience the specific needs of the Kashmiri community in Birmingham, and I put on record our thanks for the time that he and his team have made available to hear our arguments for new money. Can he tell the people in east Birmingham what the settlement will mean for us? Can he tell us what it will mean for our campaign for two new health centres and more cash for front-line doctors? Will he tell the House what the consequences might be for constituents such as mine if the cash did not arrive?

John Reid: If the cash did not arrive—fantasy though it may seem, let us consider the prospect of a Conservative Government—my hon. Friend's constituents would be millions of pounds worse off. They would have no access to NHS Direct and his local GPs would have the burden of all the commissioning of health care without any extra remuneration. Thankfully, that prospect is diminishing almost by the day, if we look at the opinion polls, so perhaps we can turn to the good news, which is that there is £69 million extra for my hon. Friend's constituents, or an increase of 22.3 per cent. over two years. That money will go to an area that badly needed it, because it was 6 per cent. beneath the assessed need expressed in the target. I would have liked to bring the figure on to target, but that was not possible. The area will be 3.5 per cent. beneath target, however, so I hope that that goes some way towards recompensing the efforts that my hon. Friend and his constituents have made to meet me and convince me of the need in their area.

Adrian Flook: Many surgeries in my constituency operate from cramped and outdated buildings. Does the allocation that the Secretary of State announced today include money to help GPs expand and improve their premises? If it does not, when will they receive such funding?

John Reid: We are making £1 billion available for that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the LIFT scheme is now in full swing after a slow start, although I would have liked it to move quicker. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is overseeing the refurbishment occurring throughout the country, and I think that some 2,000 to 3,000 premises are being refurbished. The hon. Gentleman can tell all who are interested in their local health care, quite apart from the GPs who are integrally involved in it, that there will be an 11 per cent. increase in the first year and a 13 per cent. increase in the second year, which is compounded at 20.3 per cent. There will be £23 million extra, so although the area will be in roughly the same position in relation to the target, it will be substantially better off for resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be explaining to his constituents that the extra money is coming as a benefit of the Labour Government.

Jeff Ennis: May I remind my right hon. Friend that my constituency has the highest level of disability of any constituency? More than one in three households contain at least one disabled person, which is quite clearly a legacy of the former mining industry. I thank my right hon. Friend for today's announcement and the improved funding situation for health provision in Barnsley. I remind him that historically, under the previous Government, Barnsley was the worst funded health authority in the whole Trent region, despite having some of the highest levels of health problems not just in the Trent region but in the UK as a whole.

John Reid: Yes, indeed; and I can tell my hon. Friend that Barnsley, for instance, is now closer to target than it was previously. It is just 3.5 per cent. beneath, and a £61 million increase is going in over the two years; that is a 21 per cent. increase for Barnsley. I hope that that will assist in an area where there has been terrible deprivation. I know that there are a series of one-stop primary care centres, which have improved health care in my hon. Friend's area, and there are other developments. For instance, I think that some additional GPs have come into the area recently.
	We must never forget that although we have spent a lot of time today talking about the allocation of moneys, which is what this is about, at the end of the day this is about improving patient care, and there is no doubt in my mind that all the signs on the ground now are showing that, month by month, we are getting much better patient care. This morning I was in Newham, where five years ago there was one consultant in accident and emergency; there are now five. Where there were 50 nurses there are now 80. Where they were waiting 10 months for a scan only two years ago, now they are waiting less than a week. That is where this money is going—it is going to the patients, and that is as it should be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am obliged to move on.

Points of Order

Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order, of which I have given your office notice. Anyone who reads the third report of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the debate that was held on the Floor of the House last night cannot fail to conclude that the subject of that report, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), did not properly apologise to the House for his conduct as the report required. Indeed, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chairs the Committee, said as much in his report.
	The response of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was, effectively, "I did not do it but I will apologise anyway". Surely that was a discourtesy to the House. Is this a matter on which you will rule or on which the House needs to take a stand? If it is referred back to the Standards and Privileges Committee, does there have to be a complaint of its own standing or can the Committee carry on the investigation?

Mr. Speaker: I notice that in his speech during the debate, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee made the following comment:
	"The Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to reflect on whether"
	the hon. Gentleman
	"has responded fully to our recommendation that he apologise fully to the House in the light of some of his qualifications".—[Official Report, 8 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1465.]
	I am content to leave this matter to the good judgment of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you or your office received any requests from the Prime Minister's office for the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement on the subject of the wrongful convictions of those who were blamed for the IRA bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich? You may be aware that it was widely reported on television this morning that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would be seeking to catch your eye, and apparently after discussion with the Prime Minister's office anticipated that such an apology would be made.
	The hon. Gentleman was not able to catch your eye—we all know that it is not always possible—but we now learn that the Prime Minister has made such an apology. It is reported on the BBC website that Mr. Blair said:
	"I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice"
	and that this apology was made in a statement recorded for television. Surely, if apologies of this nature are to be made, they should be made here, in the House. The House deserves rather better treatment than this.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I speak for many in the House in saying that you handle these matters impeccably. Nobody should be able to announce on the radio that a certain question is to be asked to the Prime Minister and answered in a certain way, and I would like to thank you for upholding the dignity of the House.

David Lidington: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask you to confirm, in ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), whether there is in fact no procedural obstacle to the Prime Minister notifying you that he would wish to make a statement on this subject at the close of business today, or indeed later this week during Parliament's proceedings? May I suggest to you, Sir, that many of us in all parts of the House would welcome the opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister make such a statement and to question him on it afterwards?

David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I endorse entirely everything that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has said, but also make the point that had such a statement been made by the Prime Minister in the House, that would have enabled other hon. Members with constituents and people they know who have also suffered from injustices to question the Prime Minister as to why he has been so selective in his recollection of matters?

Nigel Dodds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I follow up the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? I agree with that, in the sense that there are thousands of victims of IRA terrorism and other terrorism in Northern Ireland whose cases are going by default and whose voices are not heard. A statement as suggested would have allowed the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the continuing delay in the appointment of a victims commissioner.

Mr. Speaker: What I can say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on this point of order is that the Chair is now being drawn into the argument as to whether the Prime Minister should make a statement or not. It is for the Prime Minister or any Minister of the Crown to seek to make a statement before the House, and as right hon. and hon. Members know, when a Minister seeks to make a statement, the request is rarely refused. I therefore do not want to say any more on this matter. The Prime Minister will be able to read Hansard in the same way as everyone else and will have heard what has been stated.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for his support in this matter. Perhaps it is an opportunity to say to hon. Members that no one is entitled to demand to speak at Prime Minister's Question Time except when I call them, so no one is entitled to make a statement, prior to PM's Question Time, that they are going to raise this, that or the next thing. I think that we can safely end the matter at this point.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am totally and absolutely convinced, if I may say so, that your attitude is right in terms of the House of Commons, but I may have incurred your wrath because I appeared for five minutes at 7 o'clock on ITV, and on Sky later on, on precisely this subject. I promise you it was on the basis that there was going to be an announcement anyway. Whether it was at Question Time was not quite clear, but there was the certainty—I think in good faith—among the media that there would be an announcement.

Mr. Speaker: All that I can say is that the Father of the House once again has my admiration for the fact that he is willing to wander the streets of London and go into television studios at 7 in the morning.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in your support. I think that you have had the dignity of the House and the laws of the House at your heart, and certainly you are in complete control. We all know that, and we have to bow to that. You are infallible when you are in that Chair.

Mr. Speaker: The reverend Gentleman has gifted me with infallibility. I am very pleased by that.

Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the heart of my point of order are value for money in Government contracts, the suspicion that the Government have unfairly subsidised Swan Hunter, and their frankness in answering questions on the subject.
	The matter is well known—I raised it on the Floor of the House on 4 November in debate and four Labour Members criticised me for my comments. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence "utterly rejected" my comments. So the issue of subsidy to Swan Hunter is known to Ministers and the House. I tabled a parliamentary question asking for the amount of support given by the Government to Swan Hunter. The Minister of State's reply was:
	"The Ministry of Defence does not provide financial support to the defence industry."—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 381W.]
	The response to a separate question to the Department of Trade and Industry said that the DTI had given just one grant of £1.2 million to Swan Hunter. There the matter may have lain had there not been further discussion and questions.
	The Government are now saying two different things. To my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr.   Howarth), the Minister of State repeated his statement:
	"The Ministry of Defence does not provide financial support to the defence industry."—[Official Report, 4 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1178W.]
	But in reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), he said:
	"I regret that a clerical error in the Ministry of Defence led to an answer being laid which had been overtaken by events."
	We now know that on 10 December the Government agreed to give a further £84 million to Swan Hunter. One has to ask: when is a pre-election bung not a pre-election bung? I am afraid that the answer seems to be when it is an
	"£84 million"
	adjustment to
	"the contract with Swan Hunter following value for money considerations".—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1017W.]
	The fact is that the Minister told me, on the record, that the Ministry of Defence has not supported Swan Hunter, yet it has, in fact, given it a further £84 million. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to come to the House to respond to this point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have examined the answers given to him and other hon. Members. It is clear to me that the original answers to the two questions asked by the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) did not give a full or up-to-date picture of the facts relating to the contract in question.
	I remind Ministers of their duty to give accurate information to this House and to correct any errors at the earliest opportunity. I also remind them that pursuant answers should be used only to correct errors of fact or printing errors in an earlier answer. They should not be the vehicle for a wholly new answer. I have asked the Table Office to check closely with Departments the nature of the correction to be made before authorising the use of such pursuant answers in future.

BILL PRESENTED

Audible Motor Vehicle Alarms

Mr. Norman Baker, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Randall, Bob Russell, Mr. Nigel Jones and Tony Wright, presented a Bill to establish requirements about the noise levels of, and the duration of noise emitted by, audible alarms within motor vehicles; to make provision about tests on motor vehicles in that connection; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed [Bill 58].

Road Safety (Pillion Passengers)

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about protective helmets for children riding on motor cycles as pillion passengers; to make further provision about motor cycle construction and use in relation to pillion passengers; to make it an offence to carry a child as a pillion passenger without parental consent; and for connected purposes.
	My constituent Sean Pearce-Weston was only eight years old when he was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident in May last year. It happened on the Pevensey bypass. He was riding as a pillion passenger on a 750cc Honda motorbike owned by a friend of the family. The bike collided with a Ford Fiesta. Sean suffered serious head, neck and back injuries. He was airlifted to the local district general hospital, and later transferred to King's college hospital, where ultimately his life support machine was turned off. His parents were unaware that he had gone for a ride. He was wearing a helmet that was either ill fitting or with the strap undone. In any event, I understand it was not a specially designed child's helmet.
	I was contacted by Sean's mother Cassie and her friend and neighbour Clare Lacey. Despite the terrible grief suffered by family and friends, Cassie's main priority since the terrible accident has been to campaign for better regulations to try to ensure that what happened to Sean cannot happen again to anyone else's son or daughter. I pay tribute to Cassie and the whole family for their bravery and determination.
	Cassie started a petition in my constituency. It rapidly attracted not hundreds but thousands of signatures. Currently it has more than 7,000 signatures. There were very strong feelings on the matter in my constituency, especially in the Langney area. I was left asking: how did Sean come to be on this pillion seat without proper protection and without his parents' knowledge or consent? Would a change in the law help to avoid a similar tragedy?
	I have to admit that my initial reaction was to press for a blanket ban on children being carried as pillion passengers. I am still of the view that very young children have no place on motorcycles. I have delved into the legal and practical issues very carefully, and I met a range of organisations and bodies. I would like to pay particular thanks to the British Motorcyclists Federation, in particular Mr. Richard Olliffe. It is a responsible organisation that has been working hard through the Advisory Group on Motorcycling to develop a national motorcycle strategy.
	I do not wish to demonise motorcyclists. During this campaign, I have received e-mails and letters from bikers across the country—indeed, across the globe. As the BMF says in its mission statement, motorcycling is a legitimate means of personal transport and form of recreation. About 1 million motorcycles are registered for use on our roads.
	I recognise that the vast majority of bikers are responsible people who take particular care when carrying their own children on their pillion seat, but the case of young Sean suggests to me that there is a minority who are less responsible and that some changes to the existing law are required. From the outset, I was determined that any change in the law should be fair, proportionate and enforceable. I am not interested in empty gestures and neither are Sean's family. Some accidents are unavoidable.
	Among the other organisations I consulted were the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Brake—the road safety charity—the Motor Cycle Industry Association and Sussex Police. I am grateful for all the expert advice that they have given.
	The existing laws of direct relevance to this case can be summarised as follows: a motor bike must be equipped with suitable supports or rests for the feet of the pillion passenger; pillion passengers must be capable of sitting astride a proper seat securely fixed to the motorcycle; a pillion passenger must wear a safety helmet; and the decision to carry a passenger remains with the rider, who is legally responsible for ensuring that the passenger is safely supported.
	On 21 July last year, I went to the Department for Transport with Cassie and her daughter to present the petition. A few days earlier, I had sent a letter setting out my concerns following the accident and asking Ministers to review the legal position. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is on the Front Bench, was otherwise engaged, but was good enough to write the following day expressing his condolences to the family. In his letter he stressed that the Government were concerned about motorcycle safety and made the point that
	"Motorcyclists are our most vulnerable road users and are some 30 times more likely to be killed on the road than car users and 4 times more likely to be killed than cyclists."
	However, he concluded:
	"The Government believes that present regulations do not make it necessary to amend the legislation."
	The Minister's review of the legislation cannot have been too comprehensive because that was in reply to my letter of 8 July. Very prompt, but suggesting, perhaps, a not too deep and long-standing review.
	I have concluded that rather than a blanket ban, three things are required. First, there should be a clear legal obligation that where a child is to be carried as a pillion passenger by anyone other than a parent or legal guardian, the consent of a parent or guardian must be obtained. That should be backed up by stiff penalties. Had that obligation existed and been enforced before this tragic accident, it is more than likely that Sean would not have been on the bike in the first place. Parents have a right to know that their children will not be placed in possible danger without their knowledge and consent.
	Secondly, it should be crystal clear that a child must wear a properly fitting and specially designed child's helmet. The best information I have been able to obtain is that Sean was wearing a full-face adult lady's helmet. It was the smallest size available, and although it probably fitted the diameter of Sean's head reasonably well, the differences in the jaw of an adult female and a child meant that the strap did not fit properly, so the helmet came off on impact. So wearing a helmet was of no use at all.
	It must make sense for the law to require that specially designed children's helmets are worn. I understand from ROSPA that it plans to seek funding to create an advice leaflet for parents on taking their children on their pillions, which would look at all these issues. The BMF tells me that it would support moves to ensure that helmets approved to current UK and EU standards are readily available in child head sizes.
	Thirdly, the regulations governing the design of foot rests, or "pegs", must make it clear that the very youngest child could not legally ride pillion, and that the manufactured position of foot rests cannot be modified. At present, as I have explained, the law requires that the passenger must be able to reach the foot rests. But certain sports bikes have the rests in more accessible places, and there seems to be some evidence that owners may modify their bikes, including the position of the rests. In fairness, I should say that the BMF does not support a ban on modifying the position of foot rests, but in a constructive spirit, it has told me:
	"The BMF is however concerned that riders may not be aware of their obligations to pillion passengers and would therefore support a Department of Transport publicity campaign to ensure that riders and pillions are aware of their obligations under the current regulations."
	What has been the legal aftermath of this tragedy in my constituency—the very sad death of young Sean Pearce-Weston? The rider of the motorcycle has not been prosecuted. The driver of the car was prosecuted and admitted driving without due care and attention, rather than dangerous driving. He was fined £500 and banned from driving for six months. Sean's mother pointed out in the local paper at the time that £500 was less than the cost of organising Sean's funeral.
	I understand that the coroner's court in this case is due to reconvene on 5 April. Only after that final hearing does the Coroners Act allow the release of the formal police report on this tragic incident. It will, I am sure, make interesting reading. It is quite possible that the coroner may decide to make recommendations relating to the carriage of child pillion passengers on motor bikes. I hope that he does, and if he does, that the Government will seriously consider acting on those recommendations and on mine.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Tom Cox, Mrs. Jacqui Lait and Mr. Bill Wiggin.

Road Safety (Pillion Passengers)

Mr. Nigel Waterson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about protective helmets for children riding on motor cycles as pillion passengers; to make further provision about motor cycle construction and use in relation to pillion passengers; to make it an offence to carry a child as a pillion passenger without parental consent; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed [Bill 59].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Union Bill

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. He has also placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
	In view of the time limit that Mr. Speaker has placed on speeches, and in view of informal representations that I have received from both sides of the House, I will, if I may, not take the usual number of interventions. I do my best in all debates to take as many as possible, and I make myself available, as I did yesterday, to the European Scrutiny Committee for interrogation by Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that Mr. Speaker's decision was perhaps related in part to the well-known generosity of the Foreign Secretary in that regard.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us feel that as Parliament has not gone through the European constitution line by line on the Floor of the House, the Bill lacks the legitimacy that it would have, had that process been enabled. I hope the Foreign Secretary will not allow us to miss some of the gems of explanation that he would otherwise have put before us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a case of special pleading.

Jack Straw: I thought I was helping the Chair a moment ago, but obviously one can be wrong.
	The Bill has two linked purposes: to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Union constitutional treaty, and to decide that ratification can take place only if there is a positive vote in a United Kingdom referendum.
	Before coming to the Bill itself, let me first put it in context and explain why the new treaty is needed. The European Union's institutions and rules were designed some 50 years ago, for just six members. Since then, a succession of amendments in overlapping treaties has been agreed by the EU's member nations. But with the EU's biggest enlargement last year taking its membership to 25, and with the prospect of further expansion, it was clear that those successive treaties had to be consolidated and clarified. In addition, there was a need for reform of the European Union to make it more effective, efficient and accountable.
	When the first draft of the treaty was produced in the Convention, I published a detailed White Paper setting out the changes that would be required by the Government and the House if we were to sign up to the treaty. Over the following 10 months of intensive negotiations, we achieved every one of our negotiating objectives—a success that was widely recognised across Europe. The French newspaper Le Monde called the treaty "a British victory". Corriere della Sera in Italy declared that
	"the British won the day".
	Laurent Fabius, leader of the French "No" campaign, said that
	"the British concept has won".
	Those comments reflect the nature of the new constitutional treaty—a framework for our kind of Europe, which gives us a strong role in a Union of free and sovereign nations.
	The new treaty spells out in clearer terms than before that this is an organisation of freely co-operating nations—free to decide where to work together, free to stop doing so if they agree that it no longer makes sense, and free to take at any time a sovereign decision to pull out of the EU entirely. The constitutional treaty puts Europe's members firmly in control. It replaces the current system of six-monthly rotating presidencies of the European Council, the body in which the EU's member countries set the organisation's priorities, with a full-time Chair to ensure that it is we, the nations, who set the EU's agenda and get it implemented. That is a widely supported reform, and its supporters include, I am pleased to say, the new leader of the Conservative party in the European Parliament. The only opposition to the reform appears to have been led by the former European Commission, not the present one, and the British Conservative party.
	The new treaty slims down the size of the European Commission. It states that the EU's common foreign and security policy will remain fully under the control of Europe's nations, who can agree a common approach only when every one of those nations wishes to do so. One person, accountable to the EU's members and taking orders only from them, will implement this policy, replacing the disjointed system that we have today involving a high representative and a member of the Commission whose loyalties are ambiguous and are to the Commission, not to the European Foreign Ministers of nations.
	The new treaty ensures that national Parliaments must ratify any future changes to the EU's arrangements. The Bill gives that statutory effect in clause 2. For the first time, the treaty gives national Parliaments the power to send draft EU legislation back for review if one third of national Parliaments believe that the draft law infringes the principle that the EU should act only where it adds value—the so-called subsidiarity principle. That is an important and welcome reform, to which the Bill gives further statutory effect. It is not directly reflected in the treaty, but in the Bill I have added to the provisions of the treaty so as better to assist Parliament in that task. Under clause 3, the relevant Minister will have a statutory duty to lodge a written statement with Parliament certifying whether or not a given draft EU law, in the Government's view, complies with the subsidiarity principle.

David Heathcoat-Amory: We have that power at present, as we can object on subsidiarity grounds. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. The Commission can ignore our objections, and that will also happen under the constitution. The Commission already has to justify its proposals on subsidiarity grounds. It can overrule our objections, and it will be able to do so under the draft constitution. What, therefore, is the advance?

Jack Straw: There is a big advance, because there was a power on paper in the Maastricht treaty, but it did not have any procedure behind it. As every lawyer in the House knows, if we do not have procedure, we cannot access rights. By making provision for one third of national Parliaments to raise a yellow card to a proposal, the treaty ensures that in future there will be a proper procedure. Moreover, with help from Members from all parts of the House, I have sought to strengthen the role of the House and Parliament in scrutinising EU legislation. In my judgment, legislation is always improved if there is effective scrutiny, and that is as true of EU legislation as it is of domestic legislation. I wanted to introduce a duty on Ministers, and therefore officials and Departments, to check EU draft legislation to see whether or not it accorded with the subsidiarity principle. That is what we will have under the Bill, but we do not have it at the moment.

John Bercow: rose—

Jack Straw: I shall give way later to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
	The treaty provides Europe with a fairer and clearer voting system for making decisions, giving the larger member states relatively more power. One of the many improvements that we achieved during the intergovernmental conference was the raising of the thresholds for qualified majority voting from 50 per cent. of EU member states and 60 per cent. of the EU population to 55 per cent. of member states and 65 per cent. of population, which helps this country. The treaty sets out arrangements known as "enhanced co-operation" to allow groups of member states within Europe to work together more closely in certain areas without everyone having to take part, but it ensures that there is a level playing field. Such co-operation is allowed only if it does not harm the interests of those nations not choosing to participate. Last year, that policy was advocated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Graham Brady: The Foreign Secretary said that the House would have far more power to refer matters under subsidiarity, but when I asked the Leader of the House a question just a couple of weeks ago, I was told that no such proposals are yet in place and that the Government do not have any idea about the way in which that would operate. The Foreign Secretary is trying to suggest that we have new procedures and would have more power, but the Leader of the House made it clear that that is not the case.

Jack Straw: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. First, the Bill makes provision for a new procedure and, secondly, I have already made proposals to the House, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the European Scrutiny Committee about ways in which the House can better improve scrutiny arrangements. It is not for the Government to tell the House how it should exercise its scrutiny responsibilities. That is a matter for the House, and I look forward to receiving its recommendations. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he is pushing at an open door.
	On immigration, asylum and frontier controls, the new treaty sets out effective provisions for working together across borders, but it gives Britain the choice to opt in to those measures in which we want to participate and to stay out of those in which we do not. The new treaty extends the application of qualified majority voting in the EU in that area and others to ensure effective decision making where it is in our interests. I am unapologetic about that extension, and I hope that that is the case, too, for the whole House, including Members who served as Ministers in previous Governments such as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It was Baroness Thatcher who, as Prime Minister, spelled out the case for qualified majority voting when it is in our interest. Majority voting stops individual countries blocking vital reform. If the status quo is against us, we must be at the head of reform. That is exactly what we have done with reform to the common agricultural policy, which we could never have achieved if countries with a vested interest in the status quo were able to veto any changes.
	There are about 50 so-called improvement changes resulting from the change from veto to majority voting. Most are frankly trivial. They extend from procedures for repealing measures relating to the past division of Germany to the appointment of the executive board of the European Central Bank, neither of which affects the United Kingdom. At the end of the documents that have been laid before the House there is a complete table of such changes. Changes have also been made on asylum and immigration, although most of those were made under the Amsterdam treaty, and on criminal procedural law, but we have an emergency brake in certain areas and an opt-out in others.
	Crucially, the new treaty sets limits on the European Union's powers and, for the first time, they are listed clearly. The powers of the EU are limited to those given freely by its members. Again, for the first time, there is a procedure to modify or reduce the exercise of those powers. The treaty guarantees that the national veto is maintained on crucial issues on which we need it, such as tax, social security, fundamental aspects of criminal law, the financing of the EU, treaty changes, foreign policy and defence. By incorporating the charter of fundamental rights, the treaty includes a consolidation of existing rights, freedoms and principles, thus limiting the scope of the EU institutions. The charter makes it clear that the EU must respect the fundamental liberties of our citizens whenever it acts. The treaty itself spells out the fact that the charter is not, and cannot, be used as a source of new human rights in this country. My right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General put it well when he described the charter in a speech last year as
	"a brake not an accelerator".

Michael Spicer: The Foreign Secretary is suggesting that increased national powers are involved. Surely, however, the whole point of the new constitution is that it will remove Parliament as the root of our legal system.

Jack Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that, and I invite him to look at the treaty, the White Papers that I have produced, the evidence that I have given and the detailed commentary. There is absolutely no provenance for his statement. Remarks by hon. Members sitting next to him and by his Front-Bench team show that part of the Conservative party is trying to pretend that the proposed treaty changes the position of the primacy of European law in relation to the United Kingdom. It does not. The primacy of obligations laid out in international treaties arises in principle not from the treaty or previous EU treaties but from article 27 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider this: if a country entered into solemn treaty obligations but could then ignore them, there would never be any point in agreeing international treaties. Some countries have to incorporate every single part of international treaties directly into their domestic law—that is the case in the United States—but other countries, including the United Kingdom, take a dualist approach. The issue of primacy is present in international obligations. It was present when we joined the European Union, and it was at the heart of the argument during the 1975 referendum campaign. The position has not changed, and as one of the first articles in the treaty makes clear, European law, in respect of European competences but nothing else, has primacy. It is made clear that that is simply a restatement of the existing jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.

Tony Wright: Does not this exchange reveal that in practice the proposed referendum will not be about the terms of the constitution but will be a vote about whether or not we want to be a member of the European Union? In that sense, it will be a defining moment for this country and our relationship with Europe.

Jack Straw: One can never tell exactly the basis on which individuals vote in the privacy of the ballot box. I hope very much that the vote will be about the merits of the treaty. I am confident about its merits, and the fact that it works for Britain and makes a European Union that is much more in the image that we seek. My hon. Friend is right to imply that some in the Conservative party—by no means all of them—wish to use a no vote in the referendum on the treaty as a Trojan horse to drive the United Kingdom towards withdrawing from the European Union altogether.
	The new treaty fulfils every one of the commitments that I set out in the Government's White Paper in advance of the negotiations. All the institutional changes are beneficial to Britain and to the British people: a limit on the European Union's powers, a better-managed European Union, greater say for national Governments and Parliaments, and flexible arrangements to allow some members to go at a different speed from others. All those changes are proposals for which the Conservatives have called separately, but to which they now, incredibly, object, as illustrated in the rambling, rather oxymoronic reasoned amendment that they have tabled. That is why we have heard a litany of distortion and inaccuracy from them about what is in the text.
	Let me be clear about what the new treaty will not do. It does not change the United Kingdom's position with respect to joining the euro. It does not hand control of our borders, foreign policy or armed forces to the European Union. It does not take away our seat at the United Nations, and nor—perhaps the most absurd claim of all—does it replace Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State. I can understand that the British public are concerned when they hear such claims about the treaty, but as discussion has gone on, so the myths and distortions have been exposed. People can increasingly see the reality, which is that the treaty will set a stable, predictable and limiting framework for the European Union.
	Let me now turn to the second purpose of the Bill: a referendum in the UK and in Gibraltar to decide whether to ratify the constitutional treaty. I should point out to the House one of the many manifest absurdities of the so-called reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. It asks that we decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. If there is no Second Reading, there is no Bill, and if there is no Bill, there will be no referendum. Having called for a referendum for months and months, the Conservatives have manoeuvred themselves into the extraordinary position of deciding to vote against it the moment they are actually offered one.
	The provisions in part 2 fall under the general framework of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which many hon. Members will recall. I recall it in every particular because I was a sponsor of that excellent Bill as Home Secretary. The European Union Bill sets out who will be entitled to vote in the referendum, the terms for any legal challenges to its result, and provisions on the conduct of the referendum. It also includes the question to be posed, which is a simple and straightforward one:
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	I am glad to say that the Leader of the Opposition has said
	"we do accept the question",
	and the Electoral Commission has now approved it.
	In addition to the legislative provisions in the 2000 Act, we shall publish and make available to the House guidance on Government conduct, which will apply throughout the referendum period. It will take account of the requirements of the ministerial code, the civil service code, the special advisers code of conduct and guidance on the work of the Government information system.

Angus Robertson: Yesterday the Foreign Secretary told the European Scrutiny Committee that he did not see any need for the Bill to be repealed should there be a no vote in a referendum. That being the case, would the Bill remain on the statute book to be used for a second referendum on the treaty?

Jack Straw: The Bill cannot be used for a second referendum. There would be no point in repealing it in such circumstances, because its purpose would have come to an end. I understand the question, but because he asked it—

William Cash: I asked it.

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked me that question. I have double-checked the matter, and I refer the House to clause 10 (4) and (5). Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill can come into force, and an order be made, only if there is a yes vote. There cannot be a second yes vote; that is absolutely clear.

Frank Field: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that some Labour Members who will vote for the Bill welcome the referendum, although they will argue against the Government's case during it, but do not accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) has argued, that it will be a defining moment for the country if it is lost, although it will clearly be a defining moment for the Government?

Jack Straw: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is being consistent in his position, and I hope that his advice will be accepted as wiser counsel on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to a continuing discussion with him and one or two other hon. and right hon. Friends about the merits of the Bill. What we know of the public mood is that the more they see the good parts of the treaty, the more likely they are to support it.

Kenneth Clarke: There are those of us who support the treaty but think that the decision to hold a referendum was one of the weakest U-turns that the Government have performed on any issue in their history. Were I to vote for the Bill tonight, would the Foreign Secretary take it that I had been inconsistent in voting for the referendum? Would he advise me to vote against it, so that at least the dignity of Parliament and its right to determine the issue might be restored?

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a consistent position on the matter—he is against a referendum—and I respect him for that. Those on the Conservative Front Bench, however, are in a completely absurd position; he knows it, and so do they.
	The Bill presents a choice on whether to approve the new constitutional treaty. It is important to be clear about the nature of that choice. If Parliament and the British people approve the treaty, we will fix the framework for our sort of Europe, with the reforms that I have described, but if we reject it, we are in unknown territory, and I suggest that we will be weak and isolated in Europe. We would have no option but to go cap in hand to Brussels to ask our partners to start all over again, reopening negotiations in which we had secured such a good result. If we got any deal at all, it would be a worse and not a better one, negotiated from a position of weakness, not of strength. The long-term effect would be Britain falling into a semi-detached position in Europe while others went ahead without us. We would be left without influence, out on the margins and with no say in Europe's future direction.
	The choice is genuinely this: strength for Britain or isolation and weakness. We shall either endorse the reforms that we have secured, guaranteeing a strong Britain in our kind of Europe, or reject the treaty and step into the unknown, with all Britain's power and prosperity and all we have achieved in recent years at risk. Yet the official Opposition explicitly want to provoke just such a crisis in our relations with Europe. Indeed, just as many other nations are queuing up to join the EU, many in the Conservative party are doing their level best to reject it.

Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am coming to the end of my remarks.
	Let us be clear. The Conservatives say that they want not only a rejection of this new treaty, but a renegotiation of the texts of the existing treaties as well. At best, that is pure fantasy, and most will see it as deceit. Such an approach—to use the process as a Trojan horse to deliver renegotiation of existing treaties—is literally undeliverable. It would require the agreement of every other of the EU's 24 member states. Yet the Leader of the Opposition cannot point to one other member state that supports the Conservative party's position.
	The Conservatives' kind of Europe is what Lord Willoughby de Broke, a former Conservative peer, described thus in a speech last June:
	"like going to McDonalds and ordering a lobster thermidor".
	That is, it is very nice to have, but it is simply "not on the menu". That is the truth of the matter. If the Conservative party's policy on Europe reflects nothing else, it reflects a deeply felt pessimism about its own future and the future of this country. The Conservatives say that their policy is about sovereignty, and that that is the purpose of their reasoned amendment, but it is not so. Their policy could represent only an inexorable weakening of Britain's power and influence. The Conservative party mistake isolation for sovereignty. By definition, a castaway on a desert island is sovereign, but he has no power. By playing a strong role in the EU, Britain strengthens the power of this nation. The alternative, offered by the Conservative party, is exactly the isolation and weakness that would be so damaging to our power and prosperity.
	If, as I believe we do, we in Britain want to enhance our power and influence in the world, to shape global markets in our interests and to protect the British people from global threats—if we want to do all or any of those things—we must build strong alliances, not cut ourselves off. We have to be inside our largest market, shaping our rules, not outside it. With great respect to them, we are not Norway or Switzerland; we are one of the largest economies in Europe and in the world. The idea that we could simply take instructions from Brussels by fax, which is the alternative offered by associate status, is simple nonsense, but very dangerous nonsense.
	Whether it is in getting proper elections in Ukraine, or in taking part in negotiations with Iran to suspend the processes that could produce fuel for a nuclear bomb, Britain is stronger when we work with others in Europe. We have to maintain that power and influence, not put it at risk.
	There is a clear patriotic case for this constitutional treaty—for a strong Britain in a reforming Europe, for increasing our prosperity and our security, and for promoting our values and enhancing our power. As the debate continues in the House and in the country, I am confident that the patriotic argument for Britain in Europe will win against the narrow, pessimistic isolationism of the anti-Europeans. I say that because this is an argument about this country's future, about choosing to take our opportunities, to lead by engagement and to work with others to increase Britain's prosperity and Britain's power. I commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Ancram: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	That this House declines to give a second reading to the European Union Bill because, whilst it enables the broadly-supported and necessary Referendum to be held on the Constitution for Europe, it also provides for the implementation into UK law of that Constitution for Europe; it enshrines the primacy of European Union law and puts in place many of the elements of a state; it transfers further powers to the European Union institutions and further promotes the concept of a common foreign and security policy and a common economic policy; it further encourages the over implementation of European regulations; it extends the powers to legislate by order; it extends the competences of the European Union in many areas including asylum and immigration, criminal and civil law; and it therefore further diminishes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
	Despite the welcome provisions in the Bill for the holding of a referendum, our amendment shows clearly why we will decline to support this Second Reading today. The Bill seeks to do two very different things and deliberately ends up confusing them, and the Foreign Secretary's speech has in many ways tried to increase that confusion. First, it seeks to import into our own law the provisions of the constitution for Europe, and, secondly, it enables the referendum to be held. There should have been two separate Bills. As with devolution, it would have made sense for Parliament to know the public's mind before legislating to implement.
	We were told in last week's White Paper that
	"the process of Parliamentary scrutiny will inform the public debate"
	on the constitution. What did the Foreign Secretary mean by informing public debate—surely not the propagandist speech to which he has just treated us?
	It is clear from the Bill and its timetable, and—I have to say with a certain amount of respect as this is probably the shortest speech that the Foreign Secretary has made on Europe—the length of his speech itself, that far from informing the public debate, the Government are desperate to keep it as short and as propagandist as possible. They have started already. Last week—he did it again today, and I am sure that he will do it over and over again—the right hon. Gentleman boasted that he had delivered a constitution that every other country in Europe is calling a great British success. Once again, he quoted one or two French sources, but he is obviously selective in his reading.
	On the UMP website, President Chirac, the leader of France, says:
	"this Constitution was wanted by France, and is largely inspired by France."
	On the same website, Alain Lamassoure, one of France's constitution draftsmen, described the constitution—this is important in this context—as
	"the coronation of what we call the French vision of Europe, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon vision".
	Even Nicholas Sarkozy, the leader of the UMP, has said that
	"if the French said 'no' in the referendum, it would be the British . . . who would triumph".
	There appears to be a severe breakdown of communications between the Foreign Secretary and his French colleagues.
	The truth is, as Mr. Sarkozy suggests, that this constitution is bad for Britain and for all those who seek to retain and develop a Europe that is a true partnership of sovereign nations. That is why this reasoned amendment seeks to distinguish between the welcome prospect of a binding referendum, which we have long sought, and the rest of the Bill, which sets out to impose upon the United Kingdom a European constitution, which leads us through that gateway towards a country called Europe where we do not want to go.

Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Michael Ancram: I will give way in a second.
	Last week's White Paper made the astonishing claim that this treaty makes Europe "easier to understand". What nonsense. It establishes a constitution of considerable obtuseness, 500 pages of it, so easy to understand that a fortnight ago the Government produced a commentary on the constitution of another 500 pages. That is aside from all the propagandist bumf on the treaty that the Government have been producing during the past six months that we are now told makes it easier for Europe to understand.
	I should like to see a detailed parliamentary analysis of the constitution—

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I will in a moment.
	—a line by line examination, as I think the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned, in the course of the legislation. Yet proceedings on the Bill in this House are to be gravely curtailed to a day and half in Committee. Clearly the Government are frightened that the more we debate it, the more the British people will see it for what it is—a significant change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the first formal step towards a politically united Europe, and, to coin a phrase, the capstone of a federal state.

Denis MacShane: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that it was one of his colleagues, I believe—I am not sure—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who asked the Prime Minister if the Government would produce a commentary setting out the old treaties and the new one side by side? That is what we have done. We do what the Conservative party wants and he should welcome that.

Michael Ancram: I asked a question on how widely that had been circulated, to which I received an answer, and if the Minister looks that up, he will find that not a lot of people in Britain will see that particular document. In an earlier debate I challenged the Minister to send a copy of this constitution to every elector, and on that occasion he was very encouraging in his reply, but I see that that has now disappeared from the Government's agenda.

Graham Allen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting to one of the core problems here, which is that we started with a treaty, which is essentially a deal between various Governments, and have turned it into a constitution. Some of us favour a written constitution. We think that written constitutions are so good that they should not just go to Iraq or Europe, but to the UK as well. But will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a contradiction, because instead of trying to win people to an inspiring written constitution for a very large project, whether he agrees with it or not, we now have a highly technical, treaty-oriented, Euro-babble-ridden document that will make it even harder for those of us who support a written constitution for Europe to sell it to the British people?

Michael Ancram: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman in the difficulty that he will have in selling this to the British people. But the point about the treaty is that it is a treaty that, in its own terms, establishes a constitution for Europe. That is why we have to deal with it in terms of it being the constitution that the Government seek to implement, and deal with it in its detail. But from now on, rather than parliamentary scrutiny—we will have only a day and a half in Committee—it will be propaganda, mostly at the taxpayers' expense, on what the Government call
	"making the case for the Constitution".

Kenneth Clarke: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question to which I am genuinely not sure of the answer? What is the position of the Conservative Front Bench on the parliamentary scrutiny and a referendum if, as I trust, a Conservative Government are returned in a few weeks' time? Will there be a full parliamentary process before a referendum is held, and would that parliamentary process be conducted on an altogether more sensible timetable than is suggested for this, or is it the Conservative Front Bench's policy that we have no parliamentary process and go straight to a quick referendum on the whole thing?

Michael Ancram: Our policy, which we have made clear, is that after the election we will hold a referendum before the end of September of this year. We would take advantage of the example of the devolution referendums, where the legislation took place after the referendums, so that the House was aware of the feelings of the people who had voted in those referendums before the case was made.
	The taxpayer should wake up to the extent to which they will be fleeced to pay for this shameless one-sided propaganda exercise. The Minister for Europe said that the Government plan to spend "serious money" promoting the EU constitution, and we now discover that for once he was not joking. A written answer on 17 January revealed that the Government have tripled their budget for spending to promote the EU constitution from £200,000 last year to more than £600,000 this year. What on earth has happened to this recommendation by the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life:
	"The Government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case"?
	This Government are not taking account of that serious recommendation.
	But that is not all. Last month, the PR company, Geronimo, was hired to run an extensive communications campaign costing the taxpayer another £40,000 by April. Apparently, its brief is to promote the idea that the EU constitution is a "success for Britain". Even the Electoral Commission has inferred that the current practice is "undesirable" and that
	"in fairness the Government should operate under the same restrictions as everyone else."
	We look to the Government to stop using taxpayers' money improperly in the run-up to a referendum that will, even on their own terms, be delayed for a very long time.

Keith Vaz: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I should like to make some progress.
	The combining of the paving measure for the referendum and the adoption of the constitution into our law is simply an attempt to muddy the water. Of course, we welcome the Government's belated U-turn on the holding of a referendum, which the Prime Minister once told us would be
	"a gross and irresponsible betrayal of the true British national interest".
	However, the Bill should be about the referendum and nothing else—that, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is what we would do in these circumstances. I accept that with amendments this Bill could still achieve that purpose, and I invite the Government seriously to consider that. In that case, a day and a half in Committee would probably be more than enough for the purposes of seeing the legislation pass through.
	Then there is the question of the timing of the referendum. We have been told that it cannot be held during our presidency of the EU later this year. Why on earth not? Now that the final terms of the constitution are known, it would be better for the EU to get on with the referendum. It would also be better for the stability of Europe and better for Britain, which will become increasingly frustrated and suspicious at what is clearly unnecessary delay. I have heard no convincing reason for delaying until next spring, and I now hear rumours that the Government are considering October next year. The only conclusion that I can draw is that they are running scared of the British electorate.

Keith Vaz: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that there was no referendum on the Maastricht treaty. He will also recall voting for the Maastricht treaty, which extended qualified majority voting, as does the constitutional treaty. Does he regret doing so?

Michael Ancram: As I have said before, I think in retrospect that there was a case for holding a referendum on Maastricht. In this case, where there is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom, a referendum is absolutely essential. I repeat that when we are on the Government Benches, after May, we will hold that referendum before the end of September.

Frank Field: Some Labour Members have been laughing at the right hon. Gentleman's saying that he would have voted in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. His embarrassment, if he has any, in changing his mind—which the electorate might welcome—is surely no greater than the embarrassment of many of my colleagues, who said right up to the last moment that we should not have a referendum but will vote for one tonight.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but to save time I had not intended to rehearse points that we have made before—for example, reminding the Foreign Secretary of the days when he was not only against membership of the then Common Market, but campaigned vigorously to keep Greece out of Europe. He has changed his mind, and we can change our minds.
	I turn to the matter of the referendum question. The Foreign Secretary said that it has received approval. I have asked him, in writing, for an explanation of why the question in the Bill refers to
	"the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union"
	when the treaty itself refers to "a Constitution for Europe", but so far I have received no answer. It is vital that there is no ambiguity in the question, and it must therefore be logical that it uses the same descriptive terminology as the treaty, namely: "A Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe". Indeed, this week the Electoral Commission commented that it
	"believes that it is important to refer to the name of the treaty in the referendum question."
	It notes that the proposed question is a modification of the treaty title rather than the exact title. Its own model question, produced in October 2004, uses the correct name. If there is no significance, as I presume that the Foreign Secretary will eventually tell me when he replies, he will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment that I will table in Committee to achieve the same effect. It is interesting to note that the French question, which has been made public today, uses the precise title of the treaty by referring to the treaty that establishes a constitution for Europe. It would be sensible if our question did the same.
	Turning now to the rest of the Bill, it will come as no surprise to the House that we vigorously oppose what is being proposed. We are against a constitution for Europe, and we are against this constitution for Europe. The Bill uses the existing machinery of the European Communities Act 1972 to give legal effect to the treaty under UK domestic law.

George Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I am going to develop my theme; I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
	The Bill does not seek ratification—it seeks implementation. Even if its implementation depends on an affirmative vote in the referendum, it is nevertheless unacceptable to us, and we will vote accordingly in the Lobby tonight.

George Foulkes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to be my pair. My latest pair has crossed the Floor, I am glad to say. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take a leaf out of his book.
	I find it difficult to believe what I am hearing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is explaining what he is against, but I understand that he is in favour of a major renegotiation of our involvement in Europe. Can he name just one out of the 25 countries that is in favour of the position that he is advancing?

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until I reach that part of my speech. I remember with affection the days when the right hon. Gentleman was not trying to ingratiate himself as much as he is at the moment, and when he and I—and Sir Malcolm Rifkind—signed a letter to The Scotsman calling for a free vote on the 1972 legislation. I am not certain that we would have that support and co-operation from him today.
	I will come shortly to the reasons for our objections to the constitution and to the myths with which the Government have sought to surround it, but I want first to deal with several points arising from the Bill. It automatically extends the scope of directly effective EU law to the additional areas, such as criminal justice, that are covered by the constitution. In addition, the fundamental provisions of the constitution, including those relating to legal primacy—to which we have long objected—will be given legal effect within our law. There is also a major extension of the Government's power to legislate by statutory instrument. Ironically, that extension of bureaucratic power at the expense of Parliament is not mandated by the adoption of the constitution. It is simply a Whitehall power grab; it is gold-plating the constitution on a grand scale. That from the Foreign Secretary who told us a year ago:
	"Transposition of EU legislation into national law also needs attention. The risk of gold-plating the original texts . . . is real."—[Official Report, 11 February 2004; Vol. 417; c. 1417.]
	I suggest that he looks again at the Bill in that context. Perhaps he has been too busy drafting pathetic attacks on our policy to notice what his own officials are doing. Far from dealing with gold-plating, the Bill is a new milestone in its onward march.
	On top of that, parliamentary approval for constitutional changes in the EU, such as extending qualified majority voting still further, which until now   has required primary legislation, will now only require an abbreviated procedure. Contrary to the Government's assurances, European Court of Justice decisions on the common foreign and security policy could have legal effect. We shall want to explore all those issues more deeply in Committee, but the Government's attempts to use time constraints to stifle proper debate may make that difficult.
	The Bill is certainly not the inoffensive measure that the Government would have us believe. It sets out to create something that has not existed in this country thatis of fundamental importance and creates a fundamental change. The Government know that, which is why they seek to hide it in a miasma of myths. I may have misjudged the Government in one respect. I had thought that their assertion that the real choice facing the British people is whether they want to be in or out of Europe—the Foreign Secretary was rather less assertive about it today, but the Minister for Europe keeps returning to it on the radio—was pure propaganda. I am beginning to conclude that they have become the victims of their own spin and that they genuinely believe it. That could explain why they surrendered on so many matters on which they told us that they would stand firm. It would explain why they are so prepared to sell out our sovereignty and our rights of self-determination.
	When will the Government realise that the successful countries in the EU are those that are prepared to fight their corners and stand up for the national interest? France would never have stood by and watched while the EU destroyed a basic national industry, as we have watched our fishing industry being destroyed. No wonder the Government's record on Europe is such a dismal litany of caving in.

Angus Robertson: A moment ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the common fisheries policy. I have asked the question three or four times: will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Conservative party for signing up to it in the first place?

Michael Ancram: We have made our current position clear and we intend to pursue such a policy after we win the election in May.
	No wonder we are considering a Bill that asks us to sign away yet more of our sovereignty. We have a Government of the white flag and black propaganda. From the Government of the dodgy dossier, we got another dodgy dossier yesterday. It was based on false premises, coloured by false analysis and riddled with false conclusions, but then I read that Alastair Campbell is back. It was not about weapons of mass destruction but our EU policy. The Government use tactics of false myths, which we must expose again and again.
	The Government claim, incredibly, that the constitution means more power for member states. Former Italian Prime Minister Signor Lamberto Dini was much nearer the truth when he said that, under the constitution
	"the Union . . . will become an institution and organisation in its own right."
	I heard the Foreign Secretary on the radio this morning responding to a comment that I had made by saying that what we were experiencing now was not irreversible. I refer him to the remarks of the Prime Minister of France, Monsieur Raffarin, who said in October:
	"For the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty."
	The Government claim that the constitution is essential to manage enlargement. Yet five years ago, the Prime Minister was arguing that it was not needed. Six years ago, the Foreign Secretary's predecessor went so far as to tell the House:
	"For the record, we are not proposing a constitution of Europe."—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]
	There have been even greater myths. The Prime Minister declared that
	"we have won every single thing we wanted to secure".
	Who was he trying to kid? Of 275 Government amendments to the constitution's text, only 27 got through. That is a success rate of one in 10—hardly
	"every single thing we wanted to secure".
	The charter of fundamental rights, which the Government promised would only ever be a political declaration, is now legally binding. The Prime Minister said that giving the EU a single legal personality would be damaging and boasted after Amsterdam that he had blocked it. Yet under the constitution, the EU gets a single legal personality.
	At the convention that drafted the European constitution, the Government tried to strike out the new chapter on energy policy. They failed. They said that the creation of a European Foreign Minister would be "unacceptable", yet in article 1–28, there he is. In 1996, the Prime Minister promised, as Leader of the Opposition, that
	"we restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence" —[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 617.]
	Yet the constitution gives the Union jurisdiction over justice and home affairs. The Prime Minister claimed that
	"we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws".—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1334.]
	He said:
	"we will retain complete control over our asylum policy".
	However, the European Commission made it clear two weeks ago that that is simply untrue.
	In another desperate piece of spin, the Government invented the famous "red lines", which would not be surrendered. However, they broke them, too. They failed to stop the potential establishment of a European public prosecutor. They gave up our veto on criminal procedure law and some penalties and definitions of crime, and they gave up our veto over social security.
	Perhaps it is the depth of the Government's failure that explains the extraordinary myths that they have been prepared to propagate. The Prime Minister even claimed that
	"national Parliaments . . . can in fact block Commission measures".
	Even the Foreign Secretary said today that we are considering a yellow flag, not a red flag. All that can do is ask the Commission to review the position; it cannot force it to repeal legislation.
	Behind the myths, the reality is that the constitution represents both a strategic defeat and a defeat in detail for the Government. Their trouble is that they have no real vision for Europe, other than a vague one of integration and a desperate fear of being isolated.

George Foulkes: rose—

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Michael Ancram: I shall not give way. The result of the Government's policies has been drift and failure. Hon. Members should not take my word for it but listen to Derek Scott, the Prime Minister's trusted chief economic adviser for six years. [Interruption.] It is wonderful that someone who leaves Downing street becomes a subject of mockery after being regarded as a guru throughout the time spent there. He said:
	"The British Government never really thought through its own position."
	He should know—he was in the centre of everything. He continued:
	"First, it opposed a written constitution and then it put forward its own draft, which was treated with contempt. Then there was all that nonsense about 'tidying up' and the need to produce a clear document that could be tucked in your pocket."
	The Foreign Secretary will remember that phrase.
	Mr. Scott went on:
	"The Government never saw the discussions on the constitution as an opportunity to stand back and think clearly about the appropriate political and economic framework to sustain the EU. There was no strategic thinking. The Government drifted into negotiating over specific details."
	The result of that damning indictment is the document that the Government are trying to sell us today.
	However, the most worrying aspects are in the detail of the constitution's effects. The charter of fundamental rights will lead to the European Court of Justice making decisions on matters from asylum law to employment law that are currently the province of elected Members of Parliament. As the president of the Court of Justice said, the constitution
	"will bring new areas and new subjects under the Court's jurisdiction."
	In this country, we are currently debating which party has the best policies to deal with the problems of asylum and immigration. Under the constitution, that debate would be redundant. The relevant decisions would be taken not here but in Brussels. The constitution will vastly extend the EU's powers over our criminal justice.

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the charter are simply untrue and he must know that. Article II-III-2 makes it clear that the provisions of the charter can be justiciable only in respect of interpretation of Acts in relation to EU law. As the Attorney-General said, it acts as a constraint and a brake on the scope of what the EU can do, not an accelerator. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman perpetuate something that is incorrect?

Michael Ancram: The man who will apply the constitution—the president of the European Court of Justice—said that the constitution would bring new areas and new subjects under the court's jurisdiction. He does not accept the Foreign Secretary's point of view. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about a brake, he should consult the opinion of Professor Sir David Edward, who said that the charter was not, in effect, a brake. We should discuss that in Committee because it goes to the heart of the Government's case.

Quentin Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned asylum and immigration policy several times. I find some difficulty in following his argument and, indeed, the argument in the reasoned amendment, to which he put his name. As I read the document, the protocol on page 130 removes from the United Kingdom the application of the new provisions on asylum and immigration law. In other words, we are completely protected and allowed under the protocol to go on legislating about that for ourselves. In what way and why are provisions that explicitly do not apply to this country on asylum and immigration a reason for not acceding to the treaty?

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend must learn from experience. We learned in the past three weeks that the Government have already opted into several protocols, which have removed from the House the ability to legislate on that subject. The constitution makes that easier and more likely in future.

Tam Dalyell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, David Edward is a distinguished Scottish lawyer, who is also a pretty ardent European since his time at The Hague. What exactly did he say? I suspect that the quotation was out of context.

Michael Ancram: He spoke to the European Scrutiny Committee. If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I have the quotation in the bundle of papers and I believe that my recollection of Professor Edward's comment is accurate.
	Despite protestations that foreign and security policy will not be harmonised, a new European Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps will appear under the constitution. There is even an extension of qualified majority voting in foreign affairs and the Foreign Minister, whatever the Foreign Secretary may say, would, in some circumstances, speak for us at the United Nations. In many other important areas of national interest, including energy policy, employment law and the entrenchment of the common fisheries policy, this constitution means that decisions will no longer be taken in this national Parliament but in the European Union's institutions. Above all, as Derek Scott says, this constitution would
	"entrench Europe's failings and drag Britain down too. The constitution is a heady brew of bad politics and bad economics . . . its proponents are being disingenuous in their presentations to the British people."
	Let us face it, the European Union is not performing as it should. If it had the same record as the United States on creating jobs, 28 million more people would be in work in the European Union today. It is time to take a fresh look, and rejection of this constitution would allow us to go back to the drawing board. The reality is that a European Union of 25—and possibly more—member states can work only if it is generally recognised that different countries want different levels of integration. Why should we not let each country find the level of integration with which it feels comfortable? We need a new, imaginative structure for the European Union, and a flexible approach would ensure that we could create a made-to-measure Europe in which the institutional arrangements comfortably fitted national interests, rather than an off-the-peg Europe that is ill fitting and, as we now know, splitting at the seams.
	The Foreign Secretary holds the bizarre view that it is a fantasy to call for the return of powers from the EU to Britain, but surely the real fantasy is to assert that everything that the EU does is best decided at European level and that everything that it has done in the past is now set in stone.

George Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: No, I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before.
	There is a growing belief across Europe that some things that the EU does would be better done at national level. I know that it embarrasses Labour Members, but I am going to quote Derek Scott once more.

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and my hon. Friends will recall that, in answer to my earlier question, the shadow Foreign Secretary specifically said that he would say which countries supported his line on fundamental renegotiation. He has not yet answered that question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) knows that that is a matter of debate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not yet concluded his speech.

Michael Ancram: You are very percipient, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was about to come to the point that the right hon. Gentleman asked me about.
	Before I do so, however, I want to quote Derek Scott once more. He said that
	"the point is there are alternatives to the EU constitution. Its proponents argue that returning competences is not on anyone's agenda beyond a narrow euro-sceptic fringe. This is patently not true . . . it should have been on the agenda of the Convention of the Future of Europe. If it was not, it was because the government was too gutless to put it there."
	In answer to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) Bernard Bot, the Dutch Foreign Minister has said that
	"the EU . . . should look expressly at those parts of common policy for which member states could take responsibility again."
	And Commissioner Margot Wallström has said that
	"in the European Commission, we must accept that more power is moved back to the member states".
	So the Government's argument that there is no alternative to the constitution, and that it is absurd to call for powers to be brought back to the nation state, is simply bunkum. We, like the Dutch, think that we are better off out of the social chapter, which is adding red tape to British business. And it is because we want our fisheries to thrive like Norway's rather than continue to endure an unsustainable plundering that we believe that national and local control should be restored to our fisheries. By rejecting this constitution, and through negotiation, we can develop a European Union that works better for Britain and better for itself.

Angela Browning: On renegotiating existing treaties, surely the question should not be what the EU thinks about that, but what the British people think. An ICM poll in November showed that the British people want renegotiation, and that even more younger people than older people support that proposal.

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there is a further one to add to it. We have renegotiated successfully in the past. An example would be Lady Thatcher going to secure our rebate. The key to that renegotiation was determination and political will. The problem is that the Labour party has no determination and no political will in this regard.

Jack Straw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: No, I have spoken for long enough.
	Europe is facing relative decline. The constitution embodies the ossified thinking that lies behind it, and it is time for a fresh start. The new Commission President's call for jobs and growth to be the priority is welcome evidence that at last new thinking is emerging. Our view is that the European Union is worth renewing. The single market has, despite its faults, been a force for wealth creation. Our air is cleaner as a result of European co-operation on pollution. Old enemies have been reconciled and young democracies have found a stable home through the European Union. We actually want the EU to succeed. But it will not succeed if it is railroaded by a political elite with an overweening ambition to create a European superpower, clinging to an outmoded social model.
	The way forward—"forward" is a word the Government use frequently these days—is to reject this constitution. Opposition to it is widespread and growing. Yesterday's Institute of Directors poll of its members found that 49 per cent. were against the EU constitution, with only 29 per cent. in favour. A MORI poll of 100 of the UK's 500 largest firms in January this year found that 60 per cent. of Britain's biggest businesses were opposed to the EU constitution.
	We shall now redouble our efforts to remind the British people that they have before them a clear choice between the Government, who are hellbent on giving Brussels more control over our lives, and the Conservative Party, which will reverse that conveyor belt and bring powers back. This Bill represents a defining moment for our country. It is bad for Britain, and I call on the House to support our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is trying to catch my eye. May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that the 10-minute rule now starts to apply for Back-Bench speeches?

Robin Cook: I speak to the House as a survivor of the negotiations on the Amsterdam and Nice treaties. As such, I fully understand the complexity of the task that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had to face. I can share with the House the fact that we managed to get agreement on the complex voting formula at Nice only because, on the last night—and I do mean "night"—I smuggled in a laptop so that we could explain to the delegations how everything added up. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on having at least produced a voting system that can be explained without the use of a laptop.
	I sympathise with the patience with which my right hon. Friend has had to endure the 22-carat nonsense that has been talked about the treaty with which he has returned. One of the great instruments of our free press has said that this European constitution represents the greatest threat to English freedom for 1,000 years. Well, 1,000 years encompasses an awful lot of threats. Personally, I would have thought that Hitler, the Kaiser and King Philip of Spain's armada presented a greater threat than Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has just referred to the section on energy. Attempts have been made to suggest that if we signed up to the constitution, we should have to give away control of our North sea oil. Indeed, I have heard Members on this side of the Chamber argue that case. However, the section on energy could not be more crystal clear: there is nothing in it that affects the right of a nation to control the exploitation of its own energy resources.
	It would be a tragedy if the debate on the constitution became dominated by rebutting the myths, fantasies and canards that are told by those in the no camp. It would be a tragedy because there is a powerful, positive case to be made for the constitution—a case, I am bound to say, that should be particularly appealing to those who are critics of the European Union.
	I heard the shadow Foreign Secretary on the "Today" programme this morning, which rather interfered with my concentration on brushing my teeth. He claimed that we were once again on the one-way escalator towards giving greater power to Brussels. I have to say to him that that is not what is in the treaty. The treaty ought to be welcomed by those who want to put a limit on the creep of competence to Brussels. It specifically defines, limits and sets down what the competences of Brussels are. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to look up article I.13, which lists the exclusive competences of Brussels, he will find that they are modest and short. There are only four such exclusive competences, and only three of them apply to Britain because we are not a member of the euro. There is no substantial expansion of competence anywhere in the constitution. That is why I can understand that Romano Prodi expressed disappointment with the outcome. I cannot, however, understand why those who are worried about powers creeping to Brussels should be disappointed by an outcome that not only places a limit on those powers, but places a limit on them where they already are.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary spoke about paving the way for a country called Europe, but this constitution does nothing of the kind. It is explicit that the power of the European Union comes from competences that are conferred by the member states. That is in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first article of the constitution. One does not need to read 500 pages, just the first sentence, to grasp that elementary principle.
	One of the big shifts in the balance with Brussels that the constitution will bring is the result of one of the new big beasts in the Brussels jungle—the full-time President of the European Council. Until now, we have had a deeply unsatisfactory system, with presidents who not only changed every six months—just when they were getting a grip on strategy and direction—but tried to run Europe in the spare time left over from running their own countries. Now we will have something totally different. There will be a full-time president, permanent for two and a half years, probably for five years because it is renewable, based in Brussels with his or her own staff—someone who will actually provide a change in the focus of Brussels to keep tabs on the Commission, initiate proposals and, as it says in the constitution, "drive forward the agenda". For the first time, the member states in the Council will have a full-time, permanent figurehead to set the agenda on behalf of the member states. That is a major shift away from the present balance held by the supranational institutions.
	It is also very welcome, I have to say, that we will now know what goes on in the Council of Ministers. For the first time, as a result of the constitution, the Council of Ministers will meet in public whenever it passes legislation. I would have thought that everyone in this Chamber could welcome that, because it ends what was, frankly, an embarrassment. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only legislative body left in Europe that met in secret was the Council of Ministers. It will now meet in public and we can see what is done there, which will make it more accountable, in turn, to the national Parliaments.
	I am conscious that this infant constitution gets buffeted on both ears. It gets buffeted on the right ear by Conservative Members, who have a nostalgic yearning for the glory days of the old free-standing nation states, and it gets buffeted on the left ear by some of my hon. Friends who believe that the EU is not sufficiently aggressively socialist. I would encourage my hon. Friends to have a touch of humility when they address the question. Speaking as someone who was Foreign Secretary and, for a while, president of the Party of European Socialists, I know left-wing colleagues on the continent quite well. It may surprise my hon. Friends to hear it, but our continental partners do not think of Britain as a beacon of pioneering left-wing government—[Laughter.] It may astonish colleagues to know that most of the continental parties believe that we are not sufficiently aggressively socialist, and view Britain as being the strongest voice in the Council of Ministers for deregulation and market fundamentalism.
	I also have to say that it is our partners, not us, who have insisted on language in the constitution that should be welcome to my colleagues. Among the European values listed in the early pages are combating social exclusion and discrimination, promoting social justice, achieving full employment and social progress. Half of the charter of fundamental rights, which I welcome being written into the constitution, is about economic and social rights, including the right to collective bargaining and collective action, freedom from discrimination, the right to equal pay, paid holidays and reasonable working time. My hon. Friends might like to reflect on the fact that it was precisely because of the prominence given to those rights in the charter that the CBI long vigorously opposed it, which is a reason why Labour Members should be supporting it as a progressive step rather than resisting it.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend is trying to seduce the last dinosaurs on this side of the House, but does he accept that we have to reflect on the single market and all that it brings? That is why some of us—revisionists though we be—view this development as an unpalatable move that will lock us further into even more centralisation.

Robin Cook: I would say gently to my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the constitution that represents increased centralisation. It certainly consolidates existing measures, but the Single European Act was passed a good two decades ago. Another reason why this development should be welcomed is that there are 3 million people who work in Britain on goods that are exported to the EU, which is the market for the great majority of our exports. I personally do not believe that it is a viable long-term strategy to say to our continental partners, "Go and jump into the channel—but do keep buying British". That would not be welcome news to the 750,000 British companies that export to the EU.

Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Robin Cook: I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who has made me drop my toothbrush on many occasions.

Ian Davidson: I am not quite sure about the point of the toothbrush.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned 3 million jobs in this country, but does he accept that the EU exports more to us than we do to them, and that in the eurozone there are more jobs dependent on trade with Britain than there are British jobs dependent on trade with the eurozone? In those circumstances, they would not cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Olympian confidence that Britain has much greater economic weight than the entire eurozone, but I suspect that if he gets down to negotiations it may not look like that, and I would invite him to reflect on the relative percentages. The exports that we send to the eurozone amount to some 10 per cent. of our total gross domestic product, but the exports sent from the eurozone to Britain amount to fewer than 3 per cent. At the end of the day, we need them—I put this gently; I do not want to exaggerate—at least as much as they need us. It may be a bridge too far for my hon. Friend, but I invite him to reflect on the fact that since the euro was created, inward investment coming to Britain as a share of European investment has tumbled to a quarter of the previous level. My hon. Friend should reflect further on what he said, before the economic consequences of that start to affect his own region.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Robin Cook: I am terribly sorry, but I have now taken my two interventions for which I get injury time and I have no injury time to take any more. Fortunately, I am capable of counting to two.
	I want to return to a point that was implicit in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the Single European Act. Much of it is indeed consolidated inside this text, but although there some new matters are included, I would stress that 80 per cent. of it comprises the existing five treaties to which we have already signed up. Those who want Britain to vote no must be honest and tell people that they would not be voting no only to the new matter, but to the whole basis on which we have been a member of the EU for the last 30 years.
	I listened carefully to what the shadow Foreign Secretary said about renegotiation, but when he claimed that Mr. Bot would agree with him to renegotiate, I would point out to him that Mr. Bot signed this constitution. His name appears in the early pages of the document; the idea that he is now going to start renegotiating something that he has already authorised and signed seems to me to be pure fantasy and delusion. In the end, if another dozen European countries have referendums and vote yes, we should not imagine that their Governments are then going to settle cheerfully down and have a look at renegotiating the terms that they commended to their own people.
	Lastly, I want to say that when I was Foreign Secretary, I was impressed by the extent to which we live in an interdependent world. Our prosperity, security, freedom from organised crime—even our weather—depend on our success in achieving common approaches with the rest of our continent. The EU is an intelligent progressive model for trying to achieve such agreement. Of course, it is a condition of membership that compromises have to be accepted and that the option of going it alone has to be given up, but those are not just the conditions of membership of the EU, they are conditions of life in our modern interdependent world. In trying to reject the conditions of the EU, those hon. Members who are saying no to the constitution are also seeking to say no to modern reality. That is the case for voting yes to the constitution—for the sensible improvements that it makes to sensible arrangements for the modern world.

Menzies Campbell: We have heard a lot of quotations so far in this debate. I wonder whether, during his time in No. 10 Downing street, Mr. Derek Scott was aware that he had acquired such an extraordinarily authoritative influence over the proceedings of the House of Commons. I shall not follow the style that has been established, other than to refer to a quotation to which the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) animadverted a moment ago. Title 1 of part 1 of the treaty states that
	"this Constitution establishes the European Union on which Member States confer competences to obtain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it."
	Those two especially well written sentences contain the essence of the document that we are invited to consider today. I welcome this Bill, and I especially welcome its provisions for a referendum. When Mr. Bryan Gould, as he was then, introduced what I think was new clause 51 of the Bill ratifying the Maastricht treaty—the new clause called for a referendum on that treaty—my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, and other hon. Members from all parties, voted to support the proposal.
	As I have said often in the House before, I believe that it is right, for constitutional and political reasons, to seek the endorsement of the people of the UK when the intention is to change the relationship between Brussels and Westminster. I very much hope that the Bill will pass into law before what we understand to be the date of the general election, although I have some doubts whether sufficient legislative time is available in both Houses of Parliament. If the general election is called for 5 May, I believe that it would be right to fight it on the provisions of this Bill, and in particular on the proposal that the constitution should be ratified.
	As far as I know, at no time in history have any British Government signed a treaty that has not been ratified subsequently. However, the logic of those who would reject the Bill and the constitution seems to be that there are no circumstances in which this country would ratify a treaty entered into by our Government. That would be a very novel constitutional position to adopt. It would almost certainly put into very sharp contrast our relations with our EU allies. Therefore, rejection of the Bill would immediately provoke something of a constitutional impasse with the EU, and perhaps worse.
	Many people say that the debate on the referendum, when it takes place, must be on the terms of the constitution itself, but I think that they are guilty of wishing for something that cannot be achieved. Does anyone seriously believe that the debate on the referendum, once it begins, will be conducted both in the country and in those newspapers that are most violently against the EU on anything other than the question of whether membership is good for us or otherwise? It will be beholden on us to argue for the principle of EU membership, as well as for the terms and merits of a particular document.
	On many occasions I have argued in this House that we should never allow ourselves to forget the turmoil out of which the European Coal and Steel Community was formed, and the purposes of it and its successors. The aim was to avoid the continent of Europe being subjected to the destruction, war and loss of life that had disfigured it three times in the preceding 80 years. War between EU member states is now inconceivable. That is neither incidental nor fortuitous; it is a consequence of the EU—and, yes, of NATO as well. It is something of which I think that we are too often careless. We too often forget the genesis of the EU, and what it has achieved.
	The Foreign Secretary said earlier that our membership of the EU allowed us to join France and Germany in seeking to influence the policies of Iran, in an area that is of vital importance for our security. The remarkable handshake that we saw yesterday may presage a new chapter in the relations between Israel and the Palestinians. The EU, collectively, will have an enormous influence on the outcome of the journey on which Israel and the Palestinians appear to have set out. That influence will stem from what we can contribute and from the political influence that we can bring to bear.
	The argument for the EU that will inevitably form part of a referendum campaign must not be allowed to go by default. It is also worth reminding ourselves that only a few years ago eight of the new members of the EU were satellites of the Soviet Union, and that three member states—Spain, Portugal and Greece—were dictatorships. It is inconceivable that those countries would revert to dictatorships, or that the former Soviet satellites would do anything other than adhere to the principles of democracy and open markets that we in this country have taken for granted so long but to which they have sought to aspire.

George Foulkes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a good, logical and well argued case, but is he not worried that his approach will not get over to the British public, because of the media? For example, The Sun would have us believe that 2 million people would be unemployed, that we could not have acted in the Falklands or the Gulf without President Chirac's approval, and that we would lose our seat on the UN Security Council. How can we counteract the myths, lies and rubbish peddled by The Sun and by people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)?

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and I disagree, but I have never yet heard him compared to The Sun newspaper. If I may say so, the comparison is rather a brave one.
	However, the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right to say that there is a case to be made. As the Foreign Secretary will know, I have been critical of the Government in this matter. Since 1997, they have missed too many opportunities to make the European case. It has sometimes been said of the Prime Minister—perhaps a little slightingly—that he thinks that being at the heart of Europe means making a speech in Warsaw every two or three years. The Government could have done more since they have been in office, but I still believe that the referendum campaign can be won, so long as those in this House and outside it who believe that the EU project is worth while and that the constitution is in our interest fully engage in the argument. The campaign can be won, but it will require a great deal of application. We have not seen that application so far.
	On the question of myths, we should take our lead from the right hon. Member for Livingston. Earlier, he underlined the importance of the EU in terms of prosperity, economic advantage and inward investment. That approach is more hard-headed than the historical case that I was trying to make earlier, but the two are not mutually inconsistent. Both approaches can march robustly side by side in the campaign for the constitution.
	People are able to work, study, live and go on holiday in the EU. More than 750,000 Britons live abroad in EU member states, and at least 100,000 of them work in the EU. People understand the opportunity that the EU gives them, but the case for Europe cannot stand without an openness to reform. Europe has to enhance its democratic accountability, streamline the EU's powers and achieve political stability. The constitution is a necessary part of that.
	Since we joined in 1973, there have been four treaties and four further waves of enlargement, from six founder members to 25 members today. That may rise to 27 with Bulgaria and Romania on the doorstep and other countries, such as Croatia and Turkey, knocking on the door.
	The EU has more than 20 per cent. of world GDP, a powerful currency, of which the United Kingdom is not a member, and potentially a strong foreign policy role with the opportunity to promote freedom, stability and prosperity beyond its borders. The project is certainly worth while. I hope that we will not conduct our discussion on these matters as if we are engaged in some grand ideological contest, or a form of political combat in which victory is always equated with the successful defence of sovereignty in what is essentially a 19th-century concept, or even older.
	In a modern and connected world, sovereignty is not preserved by disengagement. It is undermined by isolation and enhanced by co-operation. In trade, economics, crime, the environment, security, immigration and the campaign against terrorism co-operation is not merely beneficial; it is imperative. As the recent United Nations high-level panel report observes, there has been globalisation not just of opportunities, but of threats and challenges, and only co-operative action will equip us to meet those challenges. Some say—perhaps portentously, but there may be some truth in it—that those challenges have the capacity to damage the very values upon which our nation is based.
	I believe that the treaty will provide institutional clarity. As I said, the competences are those conferred by a union of nation states upon the European Union, and those powers and competences now seem to be more clearly defined than before.
	On primacy, the Foreign Secretary referred to international law. Going back to 1973, it is clear that under the instrument of accession passed by Parliament, European law has primacy, but to extrapolate from that the notion that somehow our criminal law will now be subjugated to Brussels is wholly contrary to principle and makes no sense whatever. On subsidiarity—I wish that the treaty had gone further—the so-called yellow card principle is worth while, but there would have been a lot to be said for a red card. I have heard the Foreign Secretary's answer to that point, but if we are considering the matter from the point of view of the extent to which domestic Parliaments are controlling what happens in Brussels, a provision that provided for prohibition rather than delay would have greatly enhanced the credibility of the idea that domestic Parliaments can exercise control over what is happening in Brussels.

Ian Davidson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, but I will not characterise him as a newspaper of any kind.

Ian Davidson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would have liked national Parliaments to have a red card. Surely that is equivalent to a veto. One of the objections to the constitution is that Britain has given up its red card—its veto—in so many areas.

Menzies Campbell: I pause to think, but I cannot immediately bring to mind areas in which the veto has been given up. My understanding is that we have retained it for foreign policy, defence, taxation, social security and own resources. The so-called red lines seem to be eloquent examples of where the veto has not been taken away.

Jack Straw: May I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the issue of the yellow card? We have had this debate before, and if one third of national Parliaments—effectively, one third of national Governments—tell the Commission that they do not like a proposal, it will have to be reviewed. Moreover, if 45 per cent. of national Parliaments—national Governments—tell the European Union that they do not like a proposal, there is a veto. However, we cannot have the system of yellow cards replacing the system of qualified majority voting.

Menzies Campbell: I understand the constitutional point and I see Labour Members nodding, but I am considering the matter from the point of view of politics, and telling people in the United Kingdom that this is not an irreversible escalator. It would have had some advantage in that regard.

Graham Allen: In support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, may I add that had we involved this House in more detail with certain areas in which there was a red card, pro-Europeans would have liked that because it would have removed many of the problems—some of which are justified and some of which are merely found by Conservative Members—and undercut the argument against a written constitution. My fundamental point is that we would have been trying to sell the constitution on the basis of an overarching common law instead of going for a referendum on the basis of political expediency.

Menzies Campbell: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will develop that theme if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In answering the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok about vetoes, I did not acknowledge the fact that we have accepted qualified majority voting in a number of areas, but that was when it was in our interests to do so. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out effectively, the possibility of reform of the common agricultural policy depends on the exercise of qualified majority voting. If every country possessed a veto in that area, the prospect of making progress with reform would be remote.

David Heathcoat-Amory: May I assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the point about majority voting? I have a list of 63 new areas, which the Library has confirmed, that have been transferred to majority voting. They include the whole area of criminal justice, including criminal procedures, rules of evidence and rights of the accused. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that that is a significant advance into a new area by the EU, particularly as such matters will be decided by majority voting, perhaps in defiance of this House? [Interruption.]

Menzies Campbell: Well, as the Foreign Secretary says—not sotto voce, but magna voce from the Treasury Bench—we have either the right of veto or the opt-out. Let us suppose that the House decided to abolish jury trial. None of the provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would prevent it from doing so. I hope that it is highly unlikely that the House would want to do that—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary is not listening to that. In such areas, the process and principle on which our criminal law systems are based, north and south of the border, are not being attacked by the provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
	As for the presidency of the Council, continuity and coherence in the Council can only be enhanced by the proposals to be made for that office. The Commission is much maligned, sometimes justifiably, but it is worth reminding ourselves that it is half the size of Birmingham city council and has a budget of just over 1 per cent. of European Union income. It is not the monolith as which it is sometimes characterised.

Richard Bacon: If the Commission is so small, why does it have such trouble keeping an eye on its accounts, and why did the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament congratulate the Commission on the way in which it dealt with Marta Andreasen?

Menzies Campbell: On the accounting procedures of the European Union, if the hon. Gentleman had been present on previous occasions, he would have heard me criticising the fact that the accounts were not signed off. However, a more effective system of auditing the EU's accounts would have some implications. The auditors do not, at the moment, have the right to go to individual countries, but a more effective system would mean extending the auditors' powers to enable them to examine the books here in the United Kingdom. So far, there has been no particular enthusiasm for that. If the hon. Gentleman's point is that the use of public money should be subject to proper scrutiny, that applies as much in the European Union as in the House of Commons—and in that regard, we are at one.
	I want to say a word or two about the security and defence policy. This is an important and significant development and already has practical application. The European Union has taken over command and responsibility for peacekeeping in Bosnia, which will be an enormous opportunity as well as an enormous test. It is important to remind ourselves, as it has not featured so far in the debate, that NATO is still affirmed as the bedrock of our collective defence. Indeed, the treaty says:
	"commitments under NATO, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation".
	I make that point because I do not believe that there is anything to fear in this document, nor do I fear its consequences.
	The Guardian, in an editorial this morning, says that the European Union constitution is not a document "to die for". That seems to be a pretty accurate judgment. It also seems to embody sensible reform, which is why I am willing to justify it here, and ultimately in a referendum of the British people.

Joyce Quin: It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate in support of the Bill, and to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), whose approach to these issues I often agree with. It is also a pleasure to follow the sparkling contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, along with the Foreign Secretary, started to debunk some of the myths about this constitutional treaty.
	My starting point is the opinion poll published in The Times yesterday, which showed that Europe was well down the list of issues that people felt were important. Indeed, it was in ninth place, with apparently only 10 per cent. of voters citing it as important. I was pleased that the Labour Government's approach was more popular with voters on this issue. None the less, despite the excitability of large sections of the press, the public do not seem to be very engaged with the issue, which should cause us concern given that those of us who are present for this debate are keen to give a wide public airing to issues on which the public will ultimately have the responsibility to judge.
	I understand the public attitude as cited in the opinion poll, however, because despite all the alarmist comments, it seems that many of the issues that are uppermost in the public's mind at the moment—health, education, crime and other matters—are ones on which the European role is almost non-existent. In Prime Minister's Questions today, even though Members knew that the rest of today would be devoted to the European Union, Europe was hardly mentioned if at all, whereas identity cards, crime, the importance of British science and many other issues were much more prominent. We must recognise that, and realise that all of us, despite our own interest in this subject, will have to rise to a huge challenge to make it interesting to the public. Certainly, I hope that the constitution will be disseminated widely, although I sometimes worry that it might become a national cure for insomnia in the process.
	Many comments have been made, especially in interventions, about the referendum question. I have not changed my attitude on that—I feel that this particular constitutional treaty was not an appropriate subject for a referendum. It is no different from Maastricht, Nice and other treaties on which we have not held referendums. I sometimes worry, given the increasing number of referendums that we are holding in our country, whether we should at least have some ground rules about the principles according to which we proceed to holding a referendum. After all, we have welcome legislation on the conduct of referendums, but nothing on the statute book—of course, we have no written constitution—to say in what circumstances it is appropriate to hold national referendums. I feel somewhat uncomfortable about the way in which we are proceeding in that respect.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend talked about the ground rules for referendums. Does she agree that making sure that both sides in referendums have equal resources and limits on their spending in campaigns would be fair ground rules?

Joyce Quin: On this issue, I generally support the provisions contained in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2004, which provide a fair framework. Having been on the wrong side of a referendum in the north-east of England recently, I am well aware that both sides in that referendum felt that they at least had equal access to the media and that they were able to raise funds on an equal basis. There were not many grumbles about the conduct of the referendum, even though, to my mind, the result was a great disappointment.

Angela Browning: Does the right hon. Lady think that it is fair that the yes and no campaigns in referendums have only a six-month period, but the Government can continue spending money until 28 days before the referendum takes place? After all, the Government are already spending a lot of our money on this campaign.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Lady should reflect that Government policies are continually tested in the House and in the media, and a wide public debate always occurs, as we found on the devolution question. Generally, the rules adopted on the conduct of referendums are satisfactory—I am not opposed to considering possible amendments in future, but the framework for holding a reasonable referendum exists.
	This is a difficult subject for a referendum, however. I strongly support the idea of a referendum on the single currency, but that is on a fairly straightforward principle, with a fairly straightforward choice to be made. This constitutional treaty, which includes so many different aspects and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out, is 80 per cent. dominated by the existing treaties, is a particularly difficult issue on which to hold a referendum.
	Ideas have already been put forward in the debate as to whether the referendum is about whether we should be in or out of the European Union or what issues will be involved. I well remember dealing with the Maastricht treaty and talking to some people who were understandably keen on animal welfare. They urged us to vote against the treaty if it did not have a strong reference to animal welfare. A huge treaty that deals with many different issues poses a danger that the debate can be hijacked by isolated subjects in an unhelpful way. I have real worries about that.
	Having accepted that we are having a referendum, however, and that there is little point in crying over spilt milk, those of us who support the constitutional treaty will have to consider ways of making the arguments to the public and of trying to give as realistic and accurate a picture about what the treaty involves as we can. In that respect, I follow the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston and the Foreign Secretary. I believe that this treaty, in so far as it makes changes, makes sensible and welcome ones. It simplifies some of the existing text, delineates the areas where the European Union can and cannot act, provides for an increased role for national Parliaments and generally involves sensible institutional changes as a result of the welcome enlargement of the European Union.
	It also gives us the opportunity to debunk the various myths about the Queen being replaced as our Head of State. In that respect, I was interested that The Spectator said way back in 1972 that if the Queen signed the then European Communities Act, she would be signing away her birth rights. Thirty or more years later, there seems no danger of that happening or being likely to happen in any kind of foreseeable future.
	Indeed, some of the scare stories about taxation need to be debunked. It was established in the treaty of Rome that the European Commission has the power to make taxation proposals, but in reality, such matters still require unanimity. Rather than steamrollering towards a common taxation system, progress down that route—for those who want to make such progress—has been incredibly slow.

John Burnett: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Joyce Quin: I have already given way twice and I am afraid that I am unable to do so again. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	The reality is that in a common market, taxation tends to approximate over time, not because people are being forced down that route by the European Commission, but simply because of the logic of the working of that internal market.
	I hope that we will discuss today the regional considerations relating to the EU and the constitutional treaty. In my own area, the debate on Europe is sometimes somewhat different in tone from that in certain other parts of the country, perhaps partly because one of the major employers in my constituency is the Nissan car plant, which does most of its export trade with Europe and thinks along very European lines. The attitude towards the EU of my constituents who work in that plant is often different from that of others. It is important that we discuss during the referendum campaign not just the importance of Europe to our economy in general, but the way in which such importance breaks down in different areas of the UK.
	The Labour Government have made many solid achievements in their approach to Europe. We negotiated very successfully in Amsterdam, at the Berlin summit and during discussions on the Nice treaty, when the disagreements were between the French and the Germans, rather than with us. We have therefore achieved what we set out to achieve, which is important, but I should point out respectfully to Ministers that sometimes, we overstate the case for a victory for Britain, as if we had secured such a victory against everyone else. In reality, on most issues, most of the time, we have many allies. I attended several Council meetings as a Minister with various areas of responsibility, and I was always struck not by the amount of conflict but by the great consensus that dominated such meetings. As a result, most of the time they proceeded very smoothly indeed.
	The challenge of the referendum is daunting, but through that process we should aim to give our citizens more information, provide a more realistic picture of what the EU does, rebut some of the sillier myths that seem to abound, and put forward a vision of sensible, practical co-operation that is good for Britain and for Europe. I hope that we can prove successful in this task.

William Hague: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who has further illustrated that this issue always causes divisions within parties, as well as across them. There are Members who are in favour of the treaty but against a referendum, while others take the opposite view. Reference has already been made to many British traditions being under threat, but this debate shows that the splendid British tradition of being utterly inconsistent and unpredictable, as the right hon. Lady has pointed out, on the question of when to hold referendums is fully alive, as it will be at the conclusion of this debate and when the Bill completes its passage.
	That said, I welcome the fact that the Government have concluded that there should be a referendum. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I believe that the matter should have been dealt with in a Bill separate from that implementing the treaty, but it is good that the Government have executed this handbrake-turn just before the European elections.
	I want to draw our attention to people outside this House, who will be puzzled by the criteria that we apply to this issue, to the question of the constitutional treaty. It is common ground in this House that there is a great deal of public disaffection with the political process, and that disillusionment with politics has grown greatly in recent decades. To the shame of all of us who were candidates or leaders of our parties, the turnout at the last general election was 59 per cent. Comparable figures in polls today show that the percentage of people who are certain to vote at the next election is perhaps in the lower 50s. Such great disaffection is partly the result of the increased gulf between the people of this country and the decisions that are made in their name.The increasing integration of political power in the EU, which is a key part of that process, is a fundamental part of my objection to this treaty and a fundamental test against which constitutional change should be judged.
	We must ask whether, at a time of disaffection, such change makes matters better or worse. This constitution will make matters worse. Those who have followed the political debates of the past few weeks will have noticed that powers have been transferred to the EU in an alarming number of areas. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed a limit on the number of immigrants to this country a couple of weeks ago—there will be different opinions in the House about the merits of that proposal—the European Commission made it clear that he would not have the power to implement such a limit. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to be contradicting that interpretation, which would be important news.

Denis MacShane: I think that the Commission simply pointed out that under the 1951 convention, to which we are committed, Britain cannot limit the number of refugees. It was talking not about economic migrants but purely about the terms of the 1951 convention, by which we are treaty-bound.

William Hague: There is clearly a difference of opinion between Government and Opposition Front Benchers on this issue, which it is important to clarify. As I understood it, despite all the assurances about opting out, because the Government had signed the qualifications directive, thereby opting into the latest EU arrangements, this country was now committed to the additional immigration policies adopted by the EU.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What is beyond doubt is that the constitution would make it permanently impossible to leave the 1951 convention; indeed, such a principle is entrenched not only in the constitution itself, but in the EU charter of fundamental rights. So from that point on it would be impossible for any incoming Government, after winning a general election, to do anything about that convention.

William Hague: My right hon. Friend has immense knowledge of this subject, and that sounds like the correct interpretation. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister listened to it, although he is not showing much sign of having done so.
	Let us consider other subjects, small and large. A couple of weeks ago, we debated in this House the European food supplements directive, of all things. People may wonder why on earth it is the business of any level of government to be supervising such a thing, let alone a layer of government beyond the control of the people of this country. Now, if people ask their Member of Parliament to do something about that issue, the answer is, "We cannot do anything about it." Even if we vote against the measure, it will still take legal effect.
	A tax case is being heard in the European courts this very week. Marks & Spencer is in dispute with Her Majesty's Treasury, and that case may have bigger implications for taxation in this country than even anything that the Chancellor might wish to introduce in his forthcoming Budget. We are talking about vast sums of money. In that case, the European Court will decide British tax law. Marks & Spencer is taking the case under provisions that were never intended to transfer rights over taxation to the European Court.
	Whether it is an enormous subject such as immigration or taxation or whether it is something much more minor in our national affairs such as food supplements, which are important to hundreds and thousands of people, people see each day that more and more power has been drained away from our national Parliament and is now under the control of the institutions of the European Union. The separation between the people of this country and the ability to decide the laws that are made in their name is very dangerous for a democracy. The power to set such policies is among the attributes of a nation, and the people's power to control the setting of such policies is among the fundamental attributes of democracy.
	We come across relevant examples all the time. The working time directive was introduced years ago under qualified majority voting and against the opposition of the British Government, and years later, it has many different effects. Those of us who represent rural constituencies have seen services within the NHS become more difficult to maintain because of the working time directive.

Robert Jackson: rose—

William Hague: I will not give way to my former hon. Friend, because, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said earlier, injury time is up.
	This country did not agree to the working time directive. This country would never have initiated the directive, which was dreamed up by officials who do not live in this country and who know nothing of the circumstances in our health service. Although the Foreign Secretary can give assurances on occasions such as this, more and more power has been given away across a wide range of policies. The situation is dangerous, and the constitution will give away more power—the President of the European Court has said that the charter of fundamental rights will open new areas and subjects to the Court. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) knows the charter very well because we often tease him about it. A few years ago, he said that it would have the legal force of the Beano. Now, the President of the European Court says that it takes in new areas and new subjects.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has pointed out, the list of areas that have been added to qualified majority voting and from which the veto has been taken away is long. I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is not familiar with that list, because it is a very long list indeed.
	Large parts of the constitution are, of course, incomprehensible, and one cannot know what it will mean in the future. However, we know from our experience of the working time directive what such legislation can come to mean over time. The separation between the people, who are meant to exercise their democratic rights, and the institutions working in their name continues. In the United States' constitution, the separation of powers means the separation of the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. In the European constitution, the separation of powers means the separation of the right to make laws from the people, who should decide democratically the laws that are made in their name. That separation will result in catastrophe in due course.
	The Foreign Secretary has provided the reassurance that subsidiarity will come into play. However, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife gave the game away when he said that subsidiarity should have been strengthened for political and presentational reasons. One gets the sense that the whole thing is for political and presentational reasons.
	Subsidiarity has been described as a "yellow card", which sounds like a forceful sanction, but there is no referee to exercise it. Instead, one must get members of the crowd to agree to show the yellow card and to get other members of the crowd from other countries to show the same yellow card at the same time, as a result of which nothing can happen. A blocking provision—a red card—would have been better, but that would conflict with the destruction of the veto across a wide range of policies, so it is clearly impossible to introduce a blocking provision within the framework of the constitution.
	We have been told that a new safeguard will be introduced against the abuse of European Union power, but it is unlikely to be used in practice in this House. It is highly unlikely that a majority in this House, which would normally mean a majority over the Government of the day, would object to an EU directive at the same time as the same thing is done in the Bundestag or the French National Assembly. Even if it were to happen, under the constitution the European Commission could turn round and say, "No; we maintain our previous opinion. You can all go away." Where will our country's democracy stand when we arrive in that situation?
	Those are fundamental objections to the ever-growing power of European institutions, but there are many other objections. For example, those European institutions have a scandalous inability to control expenditure. That point has already been referred to, and when I raised it in this House a couple of months ago, the Minister for Europe shrugged his shoulders and said that a lot of the fraud occurs in the national Governments of the European Union. However, some of the worst fraud occurred in EUROSTAT, which is under the direct control of the European Commission. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife compared the European Commission to Birmingham council in its time, but if the district auditor had come back here and told us that for 10 years running, 95 per cent. of the expenditure of Birmingham city council had been open to fraud, corruption and abuse, we would have shut down Birmingham city council by now.
	It is absolutely intolerable that this situation exists and I want to know from the Minister—as I asked him two months ago—when he winds up the debate, what he has been doing about it in the meantime, and when a British Minister will go to the Council of Ministers, bang the table and say, "If you want money from the hard-working British taxpayer, you have to show how it is being spent." It cannot be right to give more power to European institutions; this is the latest example of a string of treaties that do so, and they are not even fit to exercise the power and the money already placed in their hands.
	There is a long list of other important objections, but I shall rest on that one and the more fundamental one that I have put forward—that a separation between the people who live in a democracy and the way that they are governed and the laws made in their name will be deeply damaging in the long run, and we will regret it.

Bill Tynan: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I have listened to the speakers from both sides of the House; I am in exalted company today.
	I believe that the constitutional treaty was a success for the Government, and I think that we were successful because we led from a strong position, because we are integrated with Europe. A treaty is necessary simply because when there are 25 states—when there is an enlargement of that degree—there is no choice but to look at the constitution and the existing treaties. The intention was that the treaties would be used to bring government closer to the people and bring Europe closer to the people. If we can effectively implement the treaty as has been suggested, I think we will give clarity to the European Union and could help to reduce people's disenchantment with Europe. Taxation, foreign policy, public services, the economy and defence were separated out, and in each case that separation was maintained by the Government. There were red lines that we decided we would not cross, and they have been secured; that was of the utmost importance.
	The new treaty is important in itself. I accept that it establishes a constitution for Europe. I had some doubt about whether we should hold a referendum; I did not think that we needed to, because I did not believe that the changes were significant within the treaty itself. But we have taken a decision. We will have a referendum and we should move in that direction.
	Much of the content of the new treaty is already set out in the existing treaties, and basic principles, such as the primacy of the treaty and the law made under it, remain the same. The primacy of Community law has been with us since 1964, and it is not a novel doctrine, as far as I am concerned, since a state has never been able to plead a provision of its own law as a reason for not complying with a treaty obligation. The 1964 provision existed, but we are not changing it in any significant way.
	I believe that the new treaty is less integrationist than the existing treaties. For example, the new treaty confirms unambiguously that the Union has only the competences conferred by the member states. That point has been made by a number of speakers. The European Court, it is generally accepted, has been reluctant to develop any concept of "implied powers", and I believe that the new treaty may well discourage that further. Secondly, the new treaty makes express provision for a state to leave the Union, and the point is made that if we are so concerned about the powers of the European Union, the opportunity is still there for us to withdraw if necessary.
	It may have been implicit in existing treaties that states had a right to withdraw, and I think that that will be confirmed. The new provisions confirm that member states are principal actors. The case of Costa v. ENEL in 1964 spoke of the permanent sharing of sovereignty. That would no longer be the case with the new treaty. It is also clear that no state could be forced to accept it against its wishes.
	Much has been said about how bad the treaty will be for Britain and how we should be greatly concerned about it. We have to deal with the myths that have been perpetrated and consider the federalist proposals that have been rejected. They are: the EU should be named the united states of Europe; the EU should have certain competences organised on a federal basis; there should be EU-wide taxation; the Commission President should be elected by EU citizens; there should be majority voting for deciding EU foreign policy; there should be majority voting for treaty amendments and an end to ratification of treaties by national Parliaments; the Commission President should chair the European Council, with his presidency and the European Council presidency merged into one; there should be a European mutual defence guarantee, separate from NATO; unanimous voting should be abolished and replaced with qualified majority voting; and the EU Foreign Minister should be accountable to the Commission, not national Governments.
	We have to deal with the issues before us today and those that are important to the people of this country. We talk about human rights. I wanted the European charter to go further and extend equal rights to trade unions and trade unionists in this country. We have maintained our dignity and peace in this country for a long time, and the EU has played a vital part in that.
	In response to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, we should be deciding whether the constitution makes things better or worse. I think that it will improve matters for this country. It will make things easier to understand. The treaty does not alter significantly what has been endorsed by previous Governments. I ask the House to support the Government because the concept is worth while.

Kenneth Clarke: I am a strong supporter of the new constitutional treaty for the European Union and I shall vote in favour of the Bill's Second Reading. However, I want to express, and this is probably the last suitable occasion on which I can do so, my strong reservations about one part of it. I shall vote for that part with great reluctance because I strongly disapprove of the provisions on the referendum.
	The greatest change that we are making to our tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country and the role of this Parliament in our national life is the concession to determine the decision in a referendum. We will never again win back for Parliament the right to control the nature of our relationships with the European Union. The only other European referendum was widely regarded on all sides as a cynical manoeuvre by Mr. Harold Wilson, who had to finesse his party and to get around it to endorse our continued membership of the EU. He pretended to hold a referendum on a financial deal of no great importance that he had renegotiated when he came into office after 1974.
	I very much regret the then Prime Minister of my Government persuading me to agree to a referendum on the euro. I am not going to go back on that. We may, in due course, have one, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) that at least it would be on one narrow finite judgment. I am not sure that a modern industrial democracy should be entrusting its monetary policy to a referendum, but so be it, and I shall take part in that debate, if and when it ever arises.

William Cash: Is my right hon. and learned Friend proposing to vote on the reasoned amendment, which lays such emphasis on the supremacy of this Parliament in respect of the implementation of the treaty? Does he not recognise that if the part of the Bill that deals with implementation is defeated, there will be no need for a referendum?

Kenneth Clarke: Out of deference to the party system on which this Parliament is based, I almost certainly will remain seated in my place when the reasoned amendment is put. As the opinions of so many of my colleagues and of my party have changed so much over the years, I shall wait for them to veer back in my direction. I quite concede that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has as good a record for consistency as I have on the subject, but he will know how unpredictable our course can be.
	Going back to my point about the referendum, I support the treaty and I believe it is an important document, but I do not believe it makes such important differences to our relationships with Europe as did the European Communities Act in 1972, the Single European Act in the late 1980s or the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s. They were all far more significant pieces of legislation determining our constitutional arrangements.
	Parliament had more than one day for Second Reading on most of those. There was huge resistance to the idea of guillotining even a day's debate, let alone timetabling the whole thing, which was all taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. I took an active part in all that. I was one of the two Whips designated to be in charge of the original 1972 Bill, so I listened to hours of debate, even if I was silent during it. A huge, protracted, important, high-quality debate took place about the principle of the primacy of European legislation over British legislation in areas of European competence. That is what it was all about, and similar debates took place thereafter.
	There was a free vote in 1972. Here we all are, proud parliamentarians, and what are we saying? The vote in the House is not going to decide the issue at all. At the general election, people can freely vote for their party, regardless of their views on Europe, because the general election vote will not determine a damn thing. We can have, if we wish, a treaty negotiated by the British Government, and we can have it ratified by the British Parliament, but the decisions on this treaty will be determined by a popular plebiscite in which the national media will endeavour to play as large and as influential a role as possible. I cannot allow that to pass without comment, even though it takes part of the 10 minutes which, under our present arrangements, we are allowed to express our views on the future of our relationships with the European Union.
	The referendum will be a huge disappointment to practically everybody, not least to the side that loses. It will be a lottery. The history of referendums shows that they are a lottery. They have been a lottery in the rest of Europe, where most of the countries saddled with the need to hold referendums deeply regret it, but of course I hope the referendum lottery goes my way. It will be very difficult to get large numbers of people to vote in it. Most people will continue to say, as they do now, that they are not quite sure what it is all about and what the treaty will do. We will all infuriate the public as we debate it in ever more strident terms, because as is clear from this debate, there will not even be agreement within the two sides of the argument about what the treaty does.
	We have had the most ferocious arguments. I have already debated the issues several times with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and as many audiences can testify, the two of us are quite incapable of agreeing on what the consequences of the treaty are. As that goes on, the danger is that even my right hon. Friend and I will lose adherents on all sides as people get exasperated by a Parliament so foolish as to put such a huge and complex subject to a popular vote.
	How will British Governments negotiate in future, when everybody who negotiates with the British Government on anything with a European tinge will know that the Government can agree, the Government might have a parliamentary majority behind them, but the Government can guarantee to deliver nothing because they must go to a plebiscite on any deal they do? Far from strengthening the hand of a Minister, it is my judgment, and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), may agree, that that will weaken the hand of every Minister in negotiations. Any negotiating partner will think, "We've got to watch these fellows. Anything they agree will get overturned afterwards."

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I still have injury time, so I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend, who is a particular old friend of mine.

Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not concede that his argument applies to most Governments in the European Union which, when they negotiate something of fundamental importance, have to hold a referendum? I do not particularly like those instruments, but my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is rather weak.

Kenneth Clarke: In my experience, referendums did not strengthen the position of Irish or Danish Ministers. Whatever they were arguing for, we knew they would have considerable difficulty in getting anything past their public when they got home. They were asked to go back and persuade the public to change their mind. It is a pity that the British, who have one of the strongest traditions of parliamentary democracy in the western world, are moving towards that position. I am resigned to fate. Such is the power of the media that all three major political parties have endorsed enthusiastically the idea of a referendum. The last to agree was the Prime Minister, and his was the weakest gesture, because he had already revealed his true opinion. Who am I to do anything but protest about the further sad decline of Parliament?

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I am afraid that I do not have any more injury time.
	The importance of the treaty has been hopelessly exaggerated. I am genuinely surprised that it has become the centre of controversy, but the referendum is likely to prove a cathartic moment in this country's relationship with the European Union. I did not see it coming, because every supporter of the enlargement of the EU always assumed that there would have to be a revision of the treaties. There was an unsurprising declaration in Nice that we would have to readdress fundamental aspects of the consolidated treaties once enlargement had taken place. We all supported enlargement and noted the need for subsequent constitutional change to improve the efficiency of the union.
	Enlargement is, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the most dramatic political events of my lifetime. One of the objectives of the EU, which no longer needs to stop wars breaking out between us, is to consolidate parliamentary democracy, liberal values and market economics across the continent. Just as the three former fascist states of Spain, Portugal and Greece were admitted to entrench those values among their populations so, most importantly, eight former members of the Soviet empire have joined for the same purpose. That is the great political objective of most of the other 24 member states and, I hope, ourselves. The orange faction in Ukraine and the popular Government in Turkey aspire to join the EU while we debate the constitutional changes made to facilitate its enlargement.
	I shall not go back over the efficiency gains that are the obvious and desirable consequence of enlargement. The end of the rotating presidency, for example, is an advantage. We could not have 25 six-monthly presidencies changing the agenda all the time, although that would be the result if we rejected the treaty. There will be one foreign affairs spokesman rather than two, and foreign policy, according to the treaty, will be determined by the Governments of member states and their Foreign Secretaries in council. I faithfully supported the extension of majority voting when it was proposed by Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and I advocated it when the Single European Act was passed in the late 1980s. The extension of majority voting to all the new areas is essential, otherwise there could be a Maltese or Latvian veto on details of business that we are trying to administer.
	Most of the treaty restates the consolidated treaties. As the right hon. Member for Livingston said, 80 per cent. of it is simply a restatement of the great previous treaties, each and every one of which I supported. Most of them were supported by the Conservative party and negotiated by Conservative Governments. The treaty also makes it clearer than ever before that this is a union of nation states, not a superstate, that power is devolved to the union by the member states, and that there is an enhanced and clearer role for national Parliaments on subsidiarity.
	I want finally to comment on the merits of the treaty in response to all the extraordinary negative claims, most of which I have heard voiced before, every time we have had a European treaty over the years. It has always apparently meant the end of our monarchy, the beginning of higher taxation, the end of our control over our criminal justice system and all that other stuff. The reinforcement of the Union of member states and of the market economy is the concept that has caused the biggest reservations elsewhere. Recently, I met Laurent Fabius, the former socialist Prime Minister, who makes me look like a Eurosceptic, and I expressed my astonishment about his proposal to vote against the treaty. He said, "It is la Britannique; it is not European enough." That is the true opinion in France—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is out of time.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), partly because his views on Europe are identical to mine. Maybe that is due to the influence of Caius college on us during our education; all the MPs in the House today produced by it are pro-European.
	I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to get cross about the fact that we have a Bill on the referendum, or indeed, about the referendum itself. I urge him to save his energy for the referendum campaign because he is a voice of reason on the Conservative Benches. What has been important in the debate is the large number of speeches of high quality. We do not agree with some of the views expressed today, but it is important that we continue the debate in the country.
	During the past few years, we have not had a sensible debate on Europe and European policy in the country at large, although we have, of course, had such debates in the House. We regularly hear from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe about forthcoming summit meetings, and the relevant Adjournment debates are usually attended by some of the hon. Members who are here this afternoon. If we are to explain what Europe is about and deal with the myths that have been created, partly by some Conservative Members, but especially by the tabloid media, which hate anything to do with the European Union, we have to have this debate outside the House.
	I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe on the work that they have done in advancing the debate, but I say this to the Government: if we are to succeed during the next 18 months in explaining to people what we are planning to do with regard to the European Union, we ought to encourage other Ministers to do what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe do so well—go out into the country and explain how their portfolios are related to the way in which Britain has benefited from being part of the European Union.
	Sitting next to my old boss, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), reminds me of events in Nice. I shall reveal a secret about my right hon. Friend and how he conducted policy. It was, of course, brilliantly conducted, but those of us who worked for him knew when he was getting frustrated about the way in which the European Union operated, because officials were asked politely, as I was sometimes asked, to get him some frothy coffee. Frothy coffee was the drink that he had when he needed to be calm about the frustrations of the European Union.
	It was because of the frustrations that I and other former Ministers for Europe witnessed that I welcome the European constitutional treaty. It will do what has not happened during the past few years following enlargement: it will reform the way in which the European Union operates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston will recall, as will all former Ministers, the frustration of having to deal with a European Union of only 15 members; it now has 25, with the possibility of even more joining. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe mentioned Romania and Bulgaria, which will join in 2007. Croatia is set to begin negotiations on 17 March, subject to the conditions laid down, and there is a possibility that Turkey will begin negotiations later this year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned Ukraine. All those countries are desperately trying to join the European Union, but there are still those in the House and the country who want to take us out of it. It is therefore vital that we have this referendum and that we have a discussion about the way in which the EU can perform better. By reforming the way in which it operates, we will get better results for the British people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said that the EU does not deliver any services, that it is not as good as Birmingham city council. As I have said before, the British people will never learn to love the EU until it learns to love reform; the organisation and the institutions have to be reformed. It is doing what Britain has wanted it to do under the two outstanding Foreign Secretaries who have represented our country during the last eight years—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston.
	The whole agenda of Europe has changed. When we arrived at the negotiating table in 1997, Britain was isolated. The agenda has moved forward because Britain has engaged positively; Ministers have engaged positively in the way in which the EU has operated. That is why, on EU policy, we have nothing to fear from qualified majority voting. We are right to be reminded that the Maastricht treaty extended QMV in 30 areas, and that treaty was voted for by probably the majority of the right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. There was no call for a referendum on Maastricht when that was being discussed.

William Cash: Oh yes, there was.

Keith Vaz: I give credit to the hon. Gentleman, because he did call for one, but I meant from the then Government Front Bench. There was no call from the then Prime Minister, or from members of the Cabinet, including the current Leader of the Opposition, for a referendum on Maastricht. They were in favour of the House of Commons deciding on that treaty without the need for a referendum.
	We should not fear QMV. Look at the results of decisions taken by QMV—this is Britain's agenda! They are what we have sought to do. We are rarely isolated on policy decisions with QMV, because we are in the majority.
	I welcome the fact that we will have an EU Foreign Minister, because it is vital that one voice should speak on foreign policy when member states have made a decision.

John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman has shared with the House the secrets of the former Foreign Secretary's coffee-drinking habits. May I share another secret with the House? At the behest of the hon. Gentleman, I attended a dinner some years ago to celebrate the emasculation of the EU charter of fundamental rights. Was the dinner premature? Is he happy that we celebrated a success or failure?

Keith Vaz: I will come to the charter in a second, because I want to answer what the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said about me.
	One thing that we foresaw was possible tension between Javier Solana and Chris Patten, but the fact is that that never happened, because both gentlemen carried out their jobs with great distinction. It is absurd, none the less, to have two people speaking on foreign policy on behalf of the EU. The then American Secretary of State said that if he wanted to find out Europe's view on foreign policy he had to ring 15 Foreign Ministers. Now, an American Secretary of State will be able to talk to one person. It will, of course, be up to the member states to decide what that foreign policy will be, but it is essential that we have some kind of strategic approach to the way in which foreign policy is worked out. That began, not at St. Malo, but with Maastricht, the treaty signed by Opposition Members. They signed up to the start of the common foreign and security policy, which is now represented in this constitutional treaty.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks teased me about the charter of fundamental rights, but he should be careful whom he teases, because he should recall that I gave him his first break in politics when I made him secretary of the all-party leather and footwear industries group when he had been here for only six months. That was not because of a personal interest in leather and footwear industries; it was a constituency interest that he shares with me, and look how well he has done.
	The point about the charter is that it was negotiated by our present Attorney-General. He had conduct of that policy. When he went into those negotiations, he was on his own, and he managed to convince all the other people and countries represented to turn towards this country's point of view. The point that I made at that time, many years ago—I remember where I was when I made it—was that the charter, like any other legal document or any other publication, can be produced before any court in the land.
	The fact is that the charter is not being extended to include more rights. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) wants it extended to make such provision, but what is to be incorporated does not do that: it consolidates what is there and talks about the proper and appropriate rights that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned—rights of which we should all be proud.
	It is not enough to pass the Bill. What is important is the campaign that follows it. That means that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that Britain's place is right at the centre of Europe—engaged in it rather than isolated—need to come out and fight for the right to be part of the European Union. Unless we do that, and unless the Government are prepared to do it, I fear that we might do badly in the referendum campaign. Let the Bill not be an end: let it be the start of a proper campaign that will bring to the attention of the people of this country the real benefits of Britain being right there at the centre of Europe.

David Curry: I have seen the European Union as a journalist, as a Member of the European Parliament, from the perspective of the Council of Ministers and from the perspective of a Select Committee. The conclusion that I have drawn from all that is that Europe ought to be a great deal more about politics and a lot less about religion.
	Europe does not have an indelible character, and it does not have a predetermined route. It is a product of member states that have joined at different times with different cultures, political traditions and priorities. So those who say that they want to know where the train is going before they are accused of missing it will never have a permanent destination on the engine, because it goes to different places simultaneously. That is the nature of the beast. People who are looking for the sort of coherence that we hope for in national politics will never find it in the European Union. It is an absolutely unique organisation with its own chemistry, and we have to apply different rules to it. Of course, some rules must be the same, such as the rules of sound accountancy, but it is very many years since the Department for Work and Pensions was acquitted by its auditors, so we might look at the motes in our own eye as regards finance.
	I shall vote yes tonight on Second Reading, for the simple reason that what this treaty proposes is better than what is there now. It is not as much better as I would like, but, none the less, the role of national Parliaments, the coherence of decision making, the European Union's ability to operate external policy, the safeguards for member states, and the increasingly intergovernmental philosophy are positive gains.
	I understand the criticisms that the constitution reflects what people believe to be too inward-looking an institutional regulatory attitude on the part of the European Union, and that it fails to establish clear enough frameworks to compete in a global world. However, by and large those are much more failures of the member states than of institutional arrangements in Europe. They call for political will. The painful steps that the French Government are taking to liberalise the 35-hour week and the flak that Chancellor Schröder has taken in Germany for what we regard as relatively modest steps to free up the pension system show how difficult that is.
	Those who advocate voting no have not demonstrated to me that any of those problems will be solved by doing so. My own Front-Bench spokesman talked of going back to the drawing board. It is fantasy to think that the European Union will go back to the drawing board in response to a British no in order to fashion a treaty that many of them think reflects British priorities even more than we do. One need only look at the demonstrators in Paris to see how much opposition is born from precisely the opposite interpretation to that of the United Kingdom.
	Voting no would risk the Franco-German creation of an inner core and I do not subscribe to the view that it is in Britain's interests to encourage a sort of implicit disintegration or fragmentation of the European Union through everybody doing the bits that they like at their own pace, and ad hoc movement. That would lead progressively and incrementally to the United Kingdom's being on the margin of more and more activities until we were on the margin of the entire institution. Such fragmentation would also lead to the absorption of the EU in internal repair and maintenance at the expense of promoting the very policies—the economic liberalism—that we want, which at last are beginning to come from the Commission.
	The second reason to vote yes is to enable the United Kingdom to seize the historical opportunity to change the terms of trade in an EU of 25. Enlargement has tipped the scale against French hegemony. It is no use our trading individual quotes from French politicians. What do people expect President Chirac to say about the treaty? If we examine the continuing dialogue and commentary in the French press, it is clear that France is preoccupied with its decline. That is the current debate in the political class and it dates from the treaty of Nice, when the French used the expression "the end of the French hegemony." A no vote would therefore betray the new member states, many of which look to Britain for their ideas. They bring a liberal economic model and an Atlanticist attitude to the EU, which we welcome.
	I do not believe that a no vote would somehow liberate the United Kingdom from what some perceive as the chains that are forged in Brussels. It would lead to colossal dislocation in our national political life. Some people would push for associate status and others would advocate leaving the EU. We would not resolve the persistent neurosis and ambivalence about Europe that prevails in the United Kingdom. We would simply ensure its prolonging.
	I see no shadow of a superstate. Too often, the EU is incoherent and disunited. Frankly, a few more of the attributes of coherence would have been welcome in past years. The primacy of Governments and the increasing favour of intergovernmental models of co-operation are reinforced, not challenged in the treaty. Of course, I would prefer a treaty that did not contain the charter of fundamental human rights, but the charge that that will enable Luxembourg judges to rewrite the entire body of national labour laws represents an unjustified elevation of current fears into what Milton called "horrible imaginings."
	The next reason to vote yes will not be shared widely in the House. It is a special reason. I believe that a yes vote will go a long way towards exorcising the demons about Europe that reside in my party. We keep talking about the new society and a changed Britain yet we also keep discussing things that manifestly disconnect us from a large part of the new Britain. I would like to exorcise the phantoms that lurk in the party's psyche and liberate us so that we can start challenging effectively for government by devising policies for the things that people want—the aspirations of contemporary society. I expect that some Labour Members, who want a Parliament with an effective Opposition, share that view.

Denis MacShane: Since it is 4.33 pm and anything that I say here will remain so secret that not even the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will get it into the public press, may I say that what frightens me, as a Labour politician, more than anything else is the prospect of the Conservative party becoming sensible again on Europe?

David Curry: I am delighted that that prospect, which I regard as inevitable, terrifies the hon. Gentleman. This Government's sheer lack of guts on Europe, the sheer unwillingness of the Prime Minister to get out there and argue his case, and their absolute refusal to take on this challenge mean that, if the referendum is lost, the Prime Minister will have only himself to blame. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) suggested that the Prime Minister gave a speech on the European Union only about once a year, usually in Warsaw. It would be a bit more helpful if he spoke more frequently on the subject in the United Kingdom and argued his case more effectively.
	An awful lot of idiotic claims are made about Europe, both for and against. The sword and shield of our post-war world have been provided by NATO, not the European Union, but the European Union has been its ploughshare. The rooting of democracy in Europe and the establishment of civil society in previously dictatorial and communist regimes represent a colossal achievement for Europe. That civil society would not exist had the aspiration to join the European Union not existed, and had not the rules been laid down to specify what criteria had to be met in order to do so.
	We are now seeing that aspiration, that impulse to move towards the European Union, in Ukraine and Turkey—two extraordinarily different countries. That should tell us how fundamental a part that institution has played in the organisation of the post-war world. The six have become 25, and the Balkan states are knocking on the door. Such countries increasingly see the European Union as the anvil of their modernisation. In Britain, however, we are still impaled on the ambivalence resulting from a resentment at what Brussels does to us and a fear of exclusion. The constitution will not solve that problem, but it will take us one step down the road to the solution.

Ian Davidson: I rise with some joy to make my speech as the first Labour Member to speak against the constitution. It is important to make it clear that the Government party is divided on this issue, just as the main Opposition party is. I am going for the treble here. It is important to recognise that the people who are most enthusiastic about the constitution are also those who wanted to give us the euro. We were successful in beating that proposition back. Indeed, I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) did not repeat the comments that he made only last week when we were on the radio together. He said that he wanted the referendum on the euro to be held on the same day as the referendum on the constitution. Bring it on, I say. At a time when 5 million people are unemployed in Germany, the more we can link those two together, the better it will be for my argument.
	The second question on which I was glad to be able to persuade the Government was whether there should be a referendum at all. I am glad that my side won. Some of the arguments heard today against consulting the people smack of sheer snobbery. The implication seems to be that people are too stupid to understand the issues, which is presumably also a strong argument against having general elections. That might be the position of some Opposition Members, but it is certainly not my view.
	I recognise, having listened to the speeches of some of my colleagues, that I am in a minority among Labour Members. All that I have on my side are the facts and the people, and I look forward to proceeding, with them, to a victory in the referendum. I recognise, however, that the results of some recent polls show that we should not be complacent. Those on my side of the argument have perhaps taken too much for granted. So, as far as I am concerned, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. We need to step up the argument against the constitution.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend talked about the elitism and snobbery of Governments throughout Europe who think that their peoples cannot make the right decision. Has not a lesson been learned in that regard in Sweden, where the elite and the establishment took one view, while the people took another and gave them a bloody nose?

Ian Davidson: Indeed. Not only did the people of Sweden give their Government a bloody nose on the question of the euro, but their Government have now decided that they are not going to take the chance again. They are therefore going to refuse the people the right to a referendum on the European constitution. That will certainly spare them the possibility of a bloody nose, but it is not particularly democratic or illuminating. It shows us that so many of those who are in favour of the constitution are against consulting the people in a referendum.
	I recognise that this Government have lumped two issues together here: the referendum, of which I am in favour; and the constitution, which I oppose. There is therefore a dilemma about which way to vote. In the circumstances, I shall vote for the referendum, because I shall have my opportunity to defeat the constitution in the referendum thus achieved. I will be able to ask all my colleagues in the Labour party and the labour movement who are opposed to the constitution to vote enthusiastically for the Government in the general election, especially in marginal seats, and then to poke them in the eye when it comes to the constitution. If anyone wants to send a message to the Government on a variety of issues, the time to do it is when we decide on the constitution.
	We heard earlier some talk about myths and the question of the monarchy was raised in that context. If anyone could provide me with more information on how the monarchy could be abolished under the new constitution, I would be very happy to receive it. Also in the context of myths, the question of the United Nations seat was mentioned. That is not simply a myth, because the relevant European Commissioner said within the last month that the Commission wants Britain to give up its UN seat in favour of an EU place on the Security Council, so there is substance to that accusation. We also need to be clear about the myths peddled by the yes side. The issue of withdrawal is not, in my view, on the table.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misread the text. Many people want us to give up our Security Council seat, but that is no change and has probably always been the case. The constitution simply provides that, in the event of agreement on a common foreign policy—under the treaty, it must be unanimous, so we would be in favour of it by definition—the European Foreign Minister would be allowed to borrow one of the permanent seats in the Security Council held by Britain and France in order to present the policy on behalf of the EU. If we are in favour of that—as I said, we should be by definition, as agreement has to be unanimous—surely we want that foreign policy to be expressed with the greatest possible force, so it makes sense to deliver it in that way on behalf of the European Union as a whole. That is what the treaty says and any claims that it goes beyond that are simply myths generated by the tabloids.

Ian Davidson: It is very helpful to hear the yes side clearly support the idea that the EU should be able to borrow, when it so desires, Britain's UN seat. We would never be quite sure when we could get it back again, but giving it on a temporary basis is the thin end of the wedge and will end with us giving it up altogether. It is very helpful to have that view put on the record.
	I return to the issue of the myths peddled by the yes side. Those who are against the constitution—on the Labour party side, at least—are not in favour of withdrawal. If we were in favour of withdrawal, we would say so. We are not in favour of it, so those on the yes side should stop peddling that suggestion. They should also stop peddling the suggestion—my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised it—that there are 3 million jobs at risk. More jobs in the EU are dependent on trade with Britain than British jobs are dependent on trade with the EU. Under World Trade Organisation or other world trading rules, there is no suggestion that we could be cut off from access to those markets, so let us not have that myth peddled either.
	I believe that the constitution is about the creation of a European superstate. It is not an isolated event, but part of a wider process, as those who drew up the constitution have made clear. Another constitution or a revised version of this constitution will be along in a while. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania lies ahead: a degree of renegotiation will be necessary, and then another constitution.
	What of Turkey? When that country joins, as the British Government hope, changes will undoubtedly be made to the constitution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Europe whether he proposes amending the constitution or producing a wholly new constitution, going through the same sort of process as this one. There are important implications and people need to know what they are letting themselves in for. Is a vote on Turkish accession included or will it be the subject of a separate parliamentary vote later?
	We have to be very careful about how the Government run the referendum. Every opportunity will be taken to influence and manipulate it. Mention has been made already about how the question is to be worded. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister for Europe whether the wording resulted from focus group research or opinion polling, or whether it was merely plucked out of the air at random. It is clear that it has been chosen to try to manipulate the outcome.
	It is interesting too that the Bill allows the referendum to be held as a joint vote, perhaps on the same day as local elections. That is a deliberate attempt to blur the division between the yes and no camps in the constitution argument by means of the partisan battle that will take place during the local elections.
	My final point in respect of the referendum has to do with propaganda. Recently, the Minister for Europe gave me a wonderful answer to a question about Government propaganda. He said:
	"the Foreign and Commonwealth Office works to ensure that all information it issues on the subject of the EU and the EU Constitutional Treaty is objective, explanatory and is in line with and supports Government policy."—[Official Report, 19 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 1020W.]
	That Government propaganda can be objective and at the same time support Government policy is a claim that belongs in some sort of Orwellian world, where it is assumed that anything said by the Government is objective and that politics applies only to what other people say. We must be careful about that, just as we must be careful about the extent to which the EU is free to spend enormous amounts of money, either directly or through the various front organisations that it funds.

Robin Cook: I am listening intently to my hon. Friend. He has made it clear that he is robustly against the European constitution, but I am having difficulty in understanding exactly why. The only reason that he has adduced so far is that it might put our seat on the UN Security Council at risk, and I believe that he is mistaken about that. He has produced no other argument to explain what is wrong with the treaty. What is it he objects to? Is it the charter of fundamental rights, or something else?

Ian Davidson: I was too generous in giving way, as I was about to say that the constitution is not all bad. I have always supported EU expansion, and I look forward to further expansion in the future. I accept that the EU can be a force for good, and I recognise its influence in spreading democracy throughout eastern Europe. I hope that it will do the same elsewhere in the world in the future.
	I and others have three main reservations about the constitution, and they can be headed Thatcherism, militarism and centralisation. The constitution is Thatcherite in that it is formulated in such a way as to open up free markets and drive down the social wage, and it does not give trade unions and other organisations extended powers. It is militaristic in that it clearly favours the establishment and use of a European armed force, and it is centralising in its approach to taxation and immigration, as we have heard already. People granted residency papers in Spain will be able to come to the UK, just as Somalis granted papers in the Netherlands are able to come here.
	I want there to be reform and renegotiation. I want the CAP and the fisheries policy to be renegotiated, and the same applies to the EU's aid programmes and its structural and cohesion programmes. I want an end to fraud. Moreover, I find variable geometry in the EU to be acceptable, as the present structure is outdated and based on myths originating in the second world war.
	Fortress Europe has had its day, and I look forward to defeating the constitution.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and I do not agree on many issues. However, we do agree that a democratic system exists to resolve differences, so the choices made by electors should lead to definable outcomes in accordance with democratic principles. It follows from what he said—I agree with him here—that all that will be at risk if those decisions are transferred to another jurisdiction so that the link between choices and outcomes is fractured for ever. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the constitution.
	Constitutions have gone in and out of fashion over the centuries. Napoleon said that a constitution should be short and obscure, so the European constitution is only half right: it is certainly obscure, but at more than 500 pages long, it breaks the first rule of a constitution—that it should be comprehensible to the public. The European constitution is not; it is a document written for politicians by politicians, and there is no chance of our electors reading or understanding it, let alone giving it their allegiance. The instruction given to the Convention, which drew up the constitution, to close the gap between the rulers of Europe and the people of Europe has been ignored.
	The constitution should never have been. The Government did not want it and said so, but when the Convention started to it draw up, the Government said that they wanted one after all, provided that it was short. When it became a long one, the Government tabled more than 200 amendments, only a fraction of which were adopted. It is odd that we are getting a written constitution in this country for the first time since the 17th century, and we have not even written it ourselves. It was written for us by others.

Kelvin Hopkins: When Poland and Spain sunk the previous attempt to create a constitution, was not the relief in Downing street palpable?

David Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I could almost hear it from my office. The relief was not just in Downing street but in the Foreign Office. That was a much unloved document, but the Government must now make the best of it, and the Foreign Secretary was at it again in his speech.
	Surely, the first job of any constitution is to solve the problem of who does what and to draw a distinction between what Europe does and what member states do. It should also overcome the wide perception, which happens to be true, that the European Union obtains more powers with each treaty, and that we have an activist Court in Luxembourg, which always interprets documents in a way that is in favour of more centralisation. The first job of a self-respecting constitution is to solve that problem, but this one does not. I shall give just one example. Most of the familiar policies that make up the daily work of this House are listed in article XIV of the constitution, but they will be so-called shared competences, which is Eurospeak for shared powers. The definition of "shared" is that when the European Union legislates in those areas in future, we will lose the right to legislate.
	What is more, only the principal areas have been listed. Anyone reading the constitution will not have the slightest idea of who does what in five years or so, particularly when almost all those policies will be decided by qualified majority voting. It may be news to the Liberal Democrats that 63 new areas will be subject to majority voting, but it is a fact.
	Another point that the Government have ignored is that the definition of majority voting has been changed in the constitution, which makes it much easier for a majority vote to be obtained. That means more legislation, more regulations and more interference. The European Scrutiny Committee, on which I serve, examined more than 1,000 new measures last year. That will accelerate and we will have more legislation, but less chance of stopping anything.
	We heard again the tired argument about this new power for national Parliaments over subsidiarity. That is not new; we can object already. It is certainly not a power, as we can object all we like, and the Commission can go on ignoring us. All that we get in this constitution is a new right to be ignored. The Government know that, as they tabled an amendment to try to upgrade the power for national Parliaments to a so-called red light, and were overruled and ignored.
	We have heard about the EU charter of fundamental rights, and I will not have more fun at the expense of the Government about how they promised that it was only of declaratory value and no more important than the Beano, whereas they must now make the best of it, as it will not only be legally binding but form the whole of part II of the European constitution. Another point about the charter is the uncertainty. The European Scrutiny Committee has received witness statements and taken evidence from constitutional lawyers about the charter. They agree that the ambiguities in the charter make it quite impossible to know what the future European Court will make of it. What they say is that the so-called safeguards trumpeted from the Treasury Bench, in order to prevent the charter seeping into national laws, will be inoperative and no safeguard whatever.

William Cash: Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that those same witnesses were extremely concerned that our judges, when faced with competing jurisdictions with the European Court, could go in the wrong direction—towards giving too much power to the European Union?

David Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, that is the so-called primacy point, which asserts unconditionally that everything in the constitution, all the laws flowing from it, and the charter, have primacy over the laws of this country. There has been a stand-off, which nobody has resolved—but if a Parliament and a people sign up voluntarily to that assertion, it is certain that national courts will start to interpret national laws as inferior to everything that comes out of the constitution. What this charter does, at the very least, instead of ending an uncertainty, is to extend and create one.

Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, I have used up my allowance of interventions.
	We have heard today about the need for reform in Europe. Some criticism has been expressed of my party's position that we will seek a renegotiation of the treaty. Why should that be such a shock? We are engaged in a colossal renegotiation. The Convention on which I served was undertaking the most fundamental reform of the European institutions ever attempted. All the existing treaties are repealed by this constitution. We are therefore engaged in an enormous renegotiation. The point, however, is that that reform and renegotiation failed. Instead of creating that democratic simple Europe which was to be closer to its citizens, we havecreated a centralised, technocratic, legalistic, undemocratic Europe. If we say no to this constitution, the brief will return to the drafters of the constitution—but next time they will have to listen to the instructions given to them, instead of creating a Europe in their own image. Today, however, this House will have to decide.
	Of course we will have a referendum. I notice that the Government have already rewritten the rules on funding to ensure that they can go on spending taxpayers' money up to a month before the referendum, whereas the rest of us will be limited. The wording on the ballot paper refers to the constitution for the European Union, which implies that it is simply a rule for the existing Union—which, incidentally, simply gets abolished if the constitution comes into effect. They do not like the idea of the true wording, which is "a constitution for Europe", which perhaps sounds more ambitious and threatening. They cannot even get the wording right on the ballot paper.
	Our task today is to decide what this House does. It is not our power that we are giving away, but that of the people whom we represent. What is British history if not a long struggle to get power under the control of people who are accountable to the electors, and who can be removed by those electors? What is British history but a long struggle to secure a parliamentary democracy, so that policies can be changed after elections and people can give effect to their democratic choices through a political system?
	This constitution and this Bill reverse all that. We will be giving up these powers and transferring decisions about criminal justice, asylum and immigration, external relations, social security and everything else upwards, to the most remote tier of government of all—the new Union. Indeed, we heard a very good example concerning asylum and immigration. It really is outrageous, but when my party win the next election on a clear pledge to do something different about asylum and immigration, we will be told that doing so is illegal even under the existing treaties, because of everything that the Government have signed up to. Such action will be constitutionally illegal once we have adopted and ratified a constitution, because the UN charter on refugees is embedded in that constitution, and withdrawal will not be possible. So people will not vote at all. Why vote—why express choice?—if such choice cannot, by constitutional law, lead to different outcomes? That is the democratic reality that we must face up to today.
	We do not have a serious choice. We are being invited to give up powers that are not ours, so I ask this Chamber and this House to strike the first blow for the people whom we represent, and for democracy, by saying no to this constitution and this Bill this evening.

Austin Mitchell: This is a very curious Bill; in fact, it is a Bill of two halves. Five clauses deal with the referendum and just five with the treaty—the constitution is actually a constitution masquerading as a treaty—thereby establishing the treaty in British law. Today is the only opportunity that we will get to discuss this issue, because today is the only opportunity to pass legislation on the new European treaty before the referendum. In effect, if we pass the Bill, we pass the treaty. We have prepared the way for implementing it in British law, if the people give their consent in a referendum.
	That is a very curious way to proceed, because as a result the House is not contributing its skill and knowledge, testing the argument or debating the issues. Nor is it examining the treaty at the same length or in the same detail that we examined the far less important and less substantial Maastricht treaty, which had far weaker effects on British polity and did not pose as a constitution. We are being asked to accept something that will change this country's constitution, and which establishes a European constitution affecting this country, on the basis of this Bill and three days' discussion on the Floor of the House. Frankly, that is not good enough for a major change such as this.
	Those of us who do not like the constitution and who will oppose it are being asked to vote for it because we will then get a referendum—which we should have been given anyway from the start. The powers that are being handed over and the roles that are being imposed on us are matters for the people to decide on. They should be able to decide whether to give their consent in any case, so the blandishment that we will get a referendum—if we vote for the treaty—means nothing. A referendum on an issue as big as this is essential. We are talking about the people's power, and they have to give their consent before any of it is handed to Europe, or any other changes are made.
	This approach was taken in order to get the issue out of the way before the general election, and it is true that we have had a lot of fun. The spectacle of my Euro- enthusiastic friends standing on their heads has been fascinating. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe did so particularly elegantly. First he said, "No, we don't need a referendum; it's unimportant." Now he says that we must have one—but we should have taken that view from the start.
	I support the provision to hold a referendum, but I have some doubts about the wording. A referendum is a conservative device that supports the status quo, and the Bill presents the constitution as the status quo:
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	That suggests that the constitution is a fait accompli, that it is pristine, new and gleaming in the distance, that everybody else is accepting it, so it would be churlish to turn it down. It would be better to ask the people whether they want Britain to accept the "proposed" European constitution—a more honest wording, which would favour my side of the argument.
	It is crucial that the referendum include equal funding and equal time for both sides of the argument. That period of equal funding and equal time should be extended, because I do not want the Government telling a series of half truths and distorting the argument in the long period before the referendum. A balance must be maintained for a longer time than just the simple campaign. We do not want my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe rampaging around the country in his red socks putting across an incorrect view of the constitution. I do not want to see a massive outpouring of Government propaganda, and the votes should be published by constituency at the end of the referendum.
	The constitution is an unnecessary, unwanted, unloved product of the European elite that has been foisted on the electorates of Europe, who are being conned into accepting it. The Convention on the Future of Europe started out loaded with Euro-enthusiasts, which was a condition for membership. The American constitution proudly states "We, the people", but all the European constitution can say is, "We, the Euro-enthusiast Euro-elite" think that this or that is self-evident.
	The document is turgid, unreadable, stolid and legalistic. It has all the intellectual excitement of cold porridge; it weighs 2½ lb; and our two representatives on the central councils of the Convention, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), both rejected it.
	I cannot accept the constitution, which strengthens the centre and is another step towards ever closer union. It also represents further progress towards the creation of a state with a full-time permanent President, a full-time permanent Foreign Secretary and an agreed security and defence policy, which will strengthen the ability of that state to overrule UK law.
	The effects of the constitution are unpredictable and I do not believe any of the forecasts. If anything, I am inclined to believe Martin Howe's argument that the constitution will create uncertainty, which will create more opportunities to overrule British laws because of the surrender of our veto in so many areas. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might be right that we will do better with qualified majority voting, he might also be wrong. The Government say, "There has been a change of mood in Europe. Britain is now more respected." Mood is, however, effervescent, and the psychology and nature of the European Union has not altered fundamentally.
	Many new clauses have been added to the constitution. One trivial example concerns the common fisheries policy, which originally concerned the marketing of fish. The policy then became a matter of equal access to a common resource, and under the constitution it would become an exclusive competence over the marine biological resources of the sea. The Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament rejected that as unnecessary, but the provision remains. Why? Why should seals or jellyfish, vertebrates or invertebrates, be part of a constitution? Why do they have to be there? Is it some extension of power? What is it all about? It is simply madness on the part of those drafting the constitution.
	Those are my fears. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tells me that I am wrong. I always listen to him; he is a wise and sage individual and I am a big admirer of his. He tells me that my fears are wrong, that things will not work out that way and that the constitution is a triumph for Britain. Fortunately, he did not come back saying "Game, set and match", as people have said before him. But it is always the job of the British Foreign Secretary to make the best of a bad Eurojob, and my right hon. Friend is falling into that role.
	The constitution does not allow for the uncertainties of the European Court of Justice—whether it will assert its power or whether its composition will be affected. However my right hon. Friend tells me that I am wrong, so let us put the argument to the test. Putting it to the electorate is no way of doing that, because the argument is likely to be detoured into simple half-truths, such as, "If we vote against it we shall be alone in the world," or, "We shall lose 3 million jobs," and all that kind of nonsense. The arguments to be put to the electorate must be prepared through argument and long discussion in the House, by our testing the argument to show what is happening.
	As that is not the case, it will be difficult for me to vote for the Bill. In fact, it will be impossible for me to vote for it, because I am flatly opposed to this European verbiage-mountain of a constitution. My Eurosceptic friends have put it to me that I should maintain the ranks—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member who is trying to leave the Chamber—[Interruption.] Order. I think enough has been said.

Austin Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There were bells ringing in my head, so I was glad of your intervention.
	As we have an understanding that we do not want to divide the party before the election, I should vote for the Bill—but I cannot. I shall devote the rest of the debate to deciding whether to bring the Government to their knees by voting against the Bill or, sagely, to abstain.

Ian Paisley: I had 25 years in the European Parliament and I saw its evolution, if I may use that term. Those who, like me, went there to represent the people and to try to get a deal for those who needed one discovered that the powers that be had other objectives and aims. Slowly but surely, those aims are coming to fruition.
	I am opposed to this constitution because it changes a treaty-based agreement between nation states to a supranational entity based on its own constitution. We must face the fact that there is a distinct difference between democratic Parliaments deciding matters that they need to decide for their own people and the coming together of a number of states that determine that they should decide what is best for the people.
	I do not know what the people of Brussels know about a place called Ahoghill, which is in my constituency. In fact, they know nothing about it; when one of them visited my constituency they pronounced it "A hog hill". Those people are not interested in the ordinary people who need our representation; they have a policy of their own. This constitution formalises the primacy of EU law over national laws. The Foreign Secretary will remember that in a debate last year I asked him which came first, the supremacy of EU laws or the supremacy of laws in this House. He told me rightly that the laws of Europe have supremacy. That being so, Parliament deteriorates into a subordinate council of Europe and, over and again, we can see that powers are being taken to give more power to Europe.
	The constitution bestows legal personality on the European Union, so that it can make treaties and binding international agreements on its own. That policy is the basis for its own Foreign Minister and common foreign and defence policy. In other words, there is no doubt that an organisation is being constructed in Europe today that will be in complete control of our people and our nation. It also puts in place the apparatus and trappings of statehood.
	People ask me why Europe has not cleaned up its act with regard to fraud. I was in the European Parliament when we decided to put the former leader of the then Labour Opposition in charge of that. I had every confidence that he was a man of integrity and strength who would certainly do a good job, but he had to return and tell the European Parliament that he had come to an impossible impasse because the Governments of Europe were not prepared to face up to their own folly. So if the Governments are not prepared to face up to fraud, who will face up to it? That was not because of any non-diligence on his part and those associated with him, but because a blockage was put in the way, yet that is where we are asked to put our faith.
	We know that, as we look upon the present situation, the devolution of powers to Europe reduces the powers of national Parliaments. More and more, we have creeping out of the national Parliaments those items and business that should be strictly under the sole authority of the nation, but outside interests from Europe seem to be able to exercise a strange, mystic power over those who attend to represent the various nations, and Brussels becomes stronger and stronger each day. We need to face up to that.
	On the powers that we had, I remember that when we heard about going into Europe, everyone said that all was well because we had the veto, and if Britain did not like what was going to be done, just one vote and Europe could not do it—it would be stopped. Now, we have the wonderful words, "qualified majority voting". One has only to look at the list of matters where the previous rule of unanimity does not apply: the election of the President; the election of the Foreign Minister; setting conditions for control by member states of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers; approximating national laws to achieve an area of freedom, security and justice, which is vital to asylum control—that is an interesting one; authorising annual expenditure; and proposals to promote social and economic cohesion. There is a whole list more: freedom of movement for migrant workers; measures necessary for the use of the euro; matters of particular interest for economic and monetary union; the prioritising of structural funds; measures on border controls, and so on. Those matters will all be covered by the new rule of voting, but qualified majority voting makes it impossible for one Government with strong views to stop such measures.
	Anyone who has been to Europe knows that a lot is done by trading off, through which one country gets something and another gets something else, so they reach agreement. Before we know it, countries that have made deals stand by them, but other countries get no deal and go to the wall. That is happening over and over again.
	Several aspects of the charter of fundamental rights are good, but others are bad. I was interested to read the other day that some people in France say that they should not go back to the days when the British won victory over Napoleon. They say that the keeping of Trafalgar day should be abolished in England altogether. That reminds me of things that are said in my country about great historic events—usually those that happened around 1690, as my friend along the Bench, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will well understand.
	In France today, the situation surrounding civil and religious liberty is dicey. I am sure that many hon. Members from the various cities and towns of England will know of the Elim Pentecostal Church. I had the great pleasure of knowing the founder of that Church, Mr. George Jeffreys. France is now moving along the lines of the charter of fundamental rights and has decided that the state has the power to determine whether a Church is a sect, or a Church.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Robert Jackson: After a European debate a few months ago, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—I still think of him as an hon. Friend—remarked to me that it was interesting that the supporters of the measure that we are considering always refer to the "European constitutional treaty", while its opponents refer to the "European constitution". That theme has emerged extensively during the debate, not least in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). For myself, I say that it is just another European treaty, and I am glad that the question to be put in the referendum brings that out clearly. We have had the treaty of Rome, the Merger treaty, the Single European Act and the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. We now have the latest treaty in the series. In typical European language, it will probably end up being called the treaty of Rome bis, and I can well understand that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would oppose it for that reason, if no other.
	Each of those treaties moved the European furniture around in different ways, and as it has been pointed out, some did so more drastically than the one now before us will. For example, the Single European Act, which was passed under Margaret Thatcher, extended qualified majority voting more widely than this treaty will.

David Heathcoat-Amory: There were extensions into 12 areas under the Single European Act, but the constitution goes into 63 new areas.

Robert Jackson: I shall be happy to discuss that point with the right hon. Gentleman. Of course we must consider not only the number of areas, but their weight and significance. He must accept that qualified majority voting on nominations to the European Court of Auditors is not quite as serious as other matters.
	The Maastricht treaty gave a treaty base to various forms of interstate co-operation among member states, and thus did more than this treaty will to extend the sphere of European responsibilities. But the basic reason why I regard this as just another treaty, rather than a constitution, is that it leaves many constitutional questions unresolved, which is why I think that the language of the Opposition, particularly in their amendment, is unwarrantedly exaggerated.
	The fundamental constitutional question must be whether the European Union is to remain as it is—an association of sovereign states, pooling their sovereignty in certain limited areas—or whether it will become a new political entity, somehow transcending the member states and reflecting a new European citizenship. On this fundamental question, this treaty maintains the radical ambiguity of the earlier treaties, going back to the treaty of Rome. To put the point more positively, this treaty preserves intact the unique hybrid nature of the European Union: not a federal state, but using shared supranational institutions for certain limited purposes. As long as this radical ambiguity—this unique hybridity—persists, none of the arrangements for shared decision making upon which the member states may from time to time agree by treaties between them can accurately, in my opinion, be described as a "constitution". Nor, therefore, can they be rejected in the fundamentalist terms that have been adduced by, for example, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who seemed in his remarks to discard the possibility even of common rules to apply to a common market. I thought that that at least was part of the acquis communautaire accepted by the Conservative party, but the right hon. Gentleman now seems to reject it.
	The political reality of Europe remains what it has always been—that power rests with the member states. Let me give two instances. The stability and growth pact of 1997 imposes legally binding constraints on the budgetary policies of those countries that have adopted the euro as their currency. Indeed, those provisions are embodied in the treaty that is now before the House. It is notorious, however, that they are not being observed by France and Germany, for the simple reason that it does not suit them to do so.
	In 1992, the Maastricht treaty introduced legally binding requirements for mutual consultation and common action in the field of foreign policy. Those are retained in the current treaty, and its opponents make much of the constraints that that will supposedly impose on foreign policy. For example, we have had a discussion about Britain's Security Council seat.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Robert Jackson: I want to finish this point.
	Two years ago, we saw no evidence of such constraints having any effect at all when the chips were down over Iraq. There were no such constraints either on the foreign policy of the majority in the enlarged Union led by Britain, which supported the war, or on the foreign policy of the minority, led by France, which opposed it.
	Europe will have a "constitution" only when it has acquired a real-world identity of its own—an identity that is more than the limited fiction of "legal personality" contained in this latest treaty. It will have a "constitution" only when there are genuine European citizens, as opposed to citizens of member states carrying a common-format passport. Neither of those things is actually happening, and with each successive enlargement of the European Union the prospect becomes more and more remote. The Opposition's fantasies about "a country called Europe" are simply that—fantasies.
	In conclusion, let me sum up the question that the country will have to decide in the referendum, as I see it. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that Britain has no interest in the political development of continental Europe. He says, "If they want to federate, let them get on with it—so long as Britain is not involved." What an abdication! What ignorance of the lessons of history! Will the country heed that siren voice luring us on to the rocks, or do we want Britain to go on as it is now, exerting a growing influence from within a European Union in which the balance of real-world forces is steadily moving in the direction that suits Britain and Britain's historic national interests? That is the choice that the British people will have to make in the referendum on the treaty, and I am confident, in the words of what used to be a Conservative slogan, that they will once again vote for "a strong Britain in a strong Europe".

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a significant number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, in accordance with the Order of the House of 26 October 2004 on shorter speeches, a time limit of six minutes will apply from now until half-past 6 o'clock. I remind the House that in the period of shorter speeches, no added time is allowed for interventions.

Bernard Jenkin: I would love to debate this subject at length with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and I am grateful to him for mentioning me. The fact that I am not able to do so underlines the extremely unsatisfactory way in which his new party is handling the legislation.
	I believe in the basic principle of democracy: that a people have the right to govern themselves. Article I of the UN charter sets out the principle of "self-determination of peoples". It is not envisaged as something that requires the permission of a higher authority; it is an absolute.
	Only three fundamental questions are raised in the context of a constitution for the EU. First, what constitutes "self-determination"? Secondly, what constitutes "a people"? Finally, does the constitution respect the self-determination of peoples? The Opposition's reasoned amendment is absolutely right to lay emphasis on the question of primacy. Ultimately, government is not about identity or particular issues, events or interests, but about the framing and implementation of laws. Therefore, to have self-determination, the people must have the means to frame and implement their own laws and system of government. In turn, that system of government must have the means to sustain and protect itself. That means it must be sovereign—it cannot be subject to a higher authority.
	I note that my hon. Friends' reasoned amendment uses the term "sovereignty". This is very basic stuff, but let us define our terms because the word has been misused. Sovereignty is not power, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) suggested. It is a different quality from power. It is not authority. Power is the ability to produce intended effects. It need not be legal power—to exercise power legally, one requires authority. The various written and unwritten laws of this country grant authority to our Ministers to exercise power legally. Where does that authority come from? The sovereign authority is the ultimate source of our law. Sovereignty is, therefore, a narrow legal concept. It is another absolute—it cannot be shared or limited. We either have it or we do not. Legal self-determination rests on the ability of a people's absolute authority to frame their own laws and to have the final say.
	The second question is: what constitutes "a people"? Clearly, the EU is made up of many peoples. There is no such thing as a European people. I have always considered that the credibility of the so-called European People's party is somewhat undermined by its insistence that the apostrophe is in the wrong place. The flaw in the idea of the European Parliament is that politics remains national. At European elections, people elect MEPs on the basis of national political considerations, which is why the European Parliament remains such an utterly obscure and irrelevant institution.
	The many peoples of the EU are properly represented by the Governments and Parliaments of its member states. It is the nations of Europe that are the democracies. To comply with the UN charter, therefore, we must strive to maintain the self-determination of the peoples of Europe.
	Whatever the EU is or may become, it is not a democracy, but a bureaucracy. Governments from the Single European Act onwards have been much too eager to hand over more and more powers without regard to proper democratic scrutiny. Every time we do this, we take power from democracies and give them to a bureaucracy.
	Despite that, I have never had a problem with the principle behind the existing legal basis of our membership of the EU. That is the principle of the delegation of national powers to the EU institutions. However problematic our relationship with the EU has become, it has only ever been a voluntary association of sovereign nation states. In the context of this debate, the only question that we must answer is whether the EU constitution represents a fundamental change to that principle of voluntary delegation of powers. Of course it does. Article I-6 states:
	"The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
	The Government will say—we have heard this already—that that merely reflects the existing precedence of the European Court of Justice, whose views on primacy are intended by the constitution to have full effect. The ECJ's view is that EU law has primacy over all national law, including national constitutional law. However, our courts rejected that idea, as recently as the "metric martyr" case in 2002. Our courts do not recognise the primacy of European law. By ratifying the constitution, the United Kingdom would effectively be committing constitutional suicide. Everything becomes subjugated to the ultimate sovereign authority of the EU. That is the intention that our courts will read, because we have enacted it on our statute book. It is utterly untrue for Ministers to claim, therefore, that the constitution is not a fundamental change. A secession clause needs to be added to the European constitution, because the present implicit right of secession would be compromised.
	If the Government allow an honest debate on the subject, there is no possibility that the British people will vote for the constitutional treaty, but I fear it will fall to opponents of the EU constitution to make that explanation. Of course the Government will try to frighten people into believing that this is some kind of "in or out" debate, but the Minister for Europe has contradicted the Foreign Secretary by insisting that the constitutional treaty is not the final resting place of the European Union and that there will be further treaties. Why did he contradict his right hon. Friend?

Peter Kilfoyle: I support the Bill. I am a strong advocate of both its form and its content. I represent one of the many areas in the United Kingdom that has benefited hugely from the positive outcomes of the European Union. I note that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is a resident and a representative of a similar area, and I do not understand the position that he takes.
	We should concern ourselves with the attitude of the Opposition. I was intrigued by the contribution from the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). After telling us about Geronimo scalping the taxpayer for propaganda purposes, he made an extraordinary statement. He criticised the Government for not allowing enough time for discussion, debate and scrutiny, but in answer to an intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), he made it clear that in the unlikely eventuality of the Conservative party being returned at the next election, there would be no scrutiny of any sort. That leads to a great deal of confusion not only in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, including Opposition Members, but outside.
	In another intervention we heard that in the Scrutiny Committee the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had legitimately asked whether the Bill could be used as the basis for a future referendum. I assume that implicit in that question is the belief among at least a section of the Conservative party that whatever is done as a result of the Bill will be undone at some future time. That underlines an almost visceral opposition to the European Union in any form that it might take.
	I was equally taken by the exchange between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they go round the country and debate these matters, and I do not doubt the sincerity with which their opposing views are held. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not understand why they could never get to the basis of the argument. That is because of the difference in their visions of the future of Europe. They are so different that it is like trying to compare the vision of Michelangelo with that of Hieronymus Bosch. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the right hon. Member for Wells see the world from totally different perspectives, and that colours their outlook on everything to do with Europe and the EU.

Robert Jackson: And wider.

Peter Kilfoyle: And far wider, as my hon. Friend suggests.
	Those who oppose the Bill always fail to draw attention to the irreconcilable tail that is wagging the Conservative dog. They fail to say what they would put in place of a United Kingdom which, in their heart of hearts, they want out of Europe. Will we no longer be the bridge to America? Are we supposed to be a dwindling and irrelevant piece of real estate floating off the edge of Europe? Will we increasingly become a client of America, and will the notion of the United Kingdom as an American aircraft carrier hold true? All the Opposition's views are vague and indeterminate, but they stem from a visceral antagonism towards the European Union and things European.
	I take great pride that on issues as disparate as the environment, Iraq—even allowing for my personal view on war against that country—arms trading with China, and the preference for diplomacy over military muscle in the case of Iran, I look to Europe for support, succour, help and common sense. That is not to deny Europe's failings and failures. I acknowledge them, but I also take on board the overwhelming advantages of the European position. I hope that we make expeditious progress on the Bill and that when we go to the country we can convince people of the good sense of such things as an improved presidency with greater continuity and objectivity. There are obvious benefits, as has been said, in not having two representatives to deal with foreign affairs. Preconceived notions are not endangered by the proposal that Javier Solana should be, for want of a better description, the first Foreign Minister under the constitution. Qualified majority voting on measures against criminal activity is also desirable. I just wish that the previous Government had introduced proposals on better co-operation with Europe, as that might have prevented leading criminals from being able to escape jurisdiction and being held to account before 1997.

David Trimble: Once again, we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory procedure whereby a new 500-page constitution will be made part of our law in just five clauses. We can only debate those clauses and not the 500 pages. I repeat that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory that agreements made through the exercise of the treaty-making power deal with Europe as if it were a foreign country on the other side of the Pacific. That is not appropriate, and it is using the royal prerogative to change our constitution. That is quite unacceptable in this day and age, and I hope that the Government will reassess such matters in future.
	There are clear differences of opinion on the construction of parts of the measure. It is no longer purely about consolidation. The Government argue that they are moving things back towards the nation state, but others regard it as yet another step in the long trail towards a federal state. When the original statement was made, I said that it does not matter what view the Government or others express because, at the end of the day, the European Court of Justice will decide these matters, and we know what its bias and approach are. After I made those comments, a Government supporter told me that I should not worry, because the Government had managed to remove the phrase "ever closer union" from the new treaty. Because they were no longer committing themselves to ever closer union, the European Court would cast a different eye on things. After finally getting hold of the text, I can confirm that "ever closer union" has gone, only to be replaced with the phrase "united ever more closely". If that does not make it clear that there is an absence of significant change, there is an express reference to continuity in the acquis communautaire. That continuity will be accompanied by continuity in the drift towards greater federalism in these provisions.
	When we were presented with the treaty, I told the Government that they had missed a huge opportunity. What we really need in Europe is fundamental reform, but we do not have it in the treaty. There is a little tinkering around the edges, but that will not stop the progress towards a federated Europe. If the Government had plucked up the courage to veto the constitution, they could have started to argue for fundamental reforms, as they would no longer be trammelled by the report from the European Convention.
	We need fundamental changes. Europe exists, and we will continue to be a part of it in one form or another. We need a democratic Europe, and the Europe we have is not democratic. For example, we have a situation in Europe where a group of unelected people have a total and absolute veto on legislation; that is another way of describing the European Commission's exclusive right of initiative. The only legislation that can be enacted is legislation proposed by the Commission, which in itself shows the absence of democracy.
	I concur entirely with the comments of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about the danger we are in when there is a gap between the people and those who make laws affecting them. That is why we need reforms to make European institutions more democratic and more democratically accountable.
	I shall just touch briefly on economic matters, which is another area in which we need huge changes. How many years ago did the Union commit itself at Lisbon to making changes? Has it made any? Is Europe more competitive or productive? No. The economic failure of the European Union gets worse, and it is important to realise that we are dealing today with economic failure. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was worried that a British no vote would lead to a Franco-German inner core. France and Germany are economic failures, and their failures are getting worse because of their failure to change their economies. The lower performance in those countries' economies dates from 1992 and it flows from Maastricht. The Minister may shake his head, but that is the case, and until major economic changes take place there, particularly with regard to the euro and the European Central Bank, the economic failure of Europe will get worse.
	The Bill also provides for a referendum, and I welcome the fact that we will have a referendum, and that it will give whoever is in Government at that stage a second chance. I believe and hope that the people will reject the constitution, and flowing from that rejection will come an opportunity to look at the matter again. Europe cannot afford to treat the United Kingdom in the dismissive way it has treated Ireland and Denmark by telling people to go back and think again.
	A rejection of the constitution will provoke the opportunity for some real changes in Europe, which are clearly needed. I hope very much that the British people will take that opportunity when it is presented to them. That is, of course, if the opportunity is presented; I still have a thought at the back of my mind that we might never see a referendum.

Michael Connarty: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but sadly I totally disagree with him. His analysis was very pessimistic and it may have more to do with the problems that he has had with other parties in Northern Ireland than with the constitution. He missed one thing completely: he was totally wrong to suggest that those in the Commission are the only people who can propose changes and legislation. The new powers given to the European Parliament through co-decision making will strengthen the democratic nature of the European Union; some of us have waited a long time for that and hope to see more of it.
	I welcome the Bill and the proposed referendum, and I welcome the wording of the referendum, because it refers to establishing a constitution for the EU. People should recognise that it will be for the EU, not for Europe. Europe is a much bigger concept that is not necessarily covered just by the people currently in the EU.
	On balance, I welcome the treaty. I say "on balance" because there are still some flaws in it, some of which were created by the Conservative Government. There were good arguments for shared competence on fisheries, for example, which we did not press for because the issue was not covered by any of the original treaties, but it might have been a useful move forward.
	What worries me most is the combination of what I would call the anti-European zealots—those in my party and the group led by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and his colleagues, with their "Be afraid; be very afraid" argument about the European Union—and the humbug and hypocrisy that I hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench. Is it opportunism rather than fear that I smell from them? Is it fear of the United Kingdom Independence party that is making them take the position that they have taken? We should never forget that the Opposition, when in government, not only signed up to a treaty that sold out the UK fisheries policy, but later, under Mrs. Thatcher, traded much of the Irish box to get the rebate, destroying a lot of the British and Scottish fisheries.
	I was disappointed in some contributions. I will refer again and again to the attack by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the working time directive when I speak to trade unionists and working people in this country. The EU led the way in the working time directive, and it should not be forgotten that it has been a great improver of the working conditions of many people in Britain.
	The right hon. Member for Wells sadly is not here. Again and again the European Scrutiny Committee discusses these matters, and shifting the balance of power of co-decision making to Members of the European Parliament will be welcome. They made it plain in their evidence to the Committee when I chaired it that they saw the constitution as a very positive thing. They included Members from Finland, born only 30 or 40 years ago, and from Hungary, born in 1939. They all had a vision of the constitution as a way forward for a balanced Europe.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Connarty: I am sorry, but I have no time to give way, even to my good friend.
	It is important that we counter all these scary stories about the EU courts. The evidence that we received showed that it was still a matter of balance. With regard to primacy, if the European courts think that our laws are not compatible, it is for us to amend our laws; we are not overruled. The override that is referred to in both amendments, one selected and one not, will not undermine the will of the UK Parliament, contrary to what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, and it will not further diminish the sovereignty of the UK, because eventually we in this Parliament must decide what we do when there is a conflict between our laws and interpretation of the laws in the EU.
	If hon. Members take the trouble to read the evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee, they will see that the academics disagreed on the possible behaviour of the EU courts. That is not a surprise; there would be no academic debate if that were not so. But even the most obviously Eurosceptic witnesses, some of whom were quoted today, said that the UK Parliament would have the right to decide if and how to respond to any of those decisions in the courts.
	I come now to some Labour Members who are opposed to the measure. It is new words for old arguments; new weapons to fight old battles; and, unfortunately, old warriors dressed up in new uniforms. The treaty and the referendum that will follow are not about holding back the free-market process, or the common market process as it used to be called. They are not about challenging the right or the left-wing balance of opinion within the Commission. They will not be about the UK rebate. All those matters will be trotted out, rather than there being an argument about the constitution.
	The Bill is not about the euro, immigration or the common fisheries policy, but, in the view of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues, it is about the possibility that if the Government are defeated in the referendum, the European Communities Act 1972 can be renegotiated and we can pull out of the EU. That is the real agenda for those on the Eurosceptic wing, and the official Opposition are in serious danger of being trapped into that argument because it is the only argument that they have to play towards.
	I do not believe that the British people will respond to that. They realise that this is a mature and difficult treaty between countries, all of which want to hold on to their sovereignty as much as we do and to build a balanced, strong EU. I am not afraid of the fact that in treaties one has to give to receive, and in most cases QMV in the 53 areas that we are talking about will be to our advantage, as has been the case in more than 95 per cent. of cases to date. This is a treaty that I look forward to taking to a referendum and to supporting in the country. I support the Bill tonight.

Quentin Davies: It is disgraceful that the House has such a short time to debate such an important matter.
	It is clear that with the referendum during the next year or 18 months Britain will face a defining moment in our history. Over that time, 25 Governments will be going through the ratification process. It is virtually certain that 23 or 24 of them will achieve ratification through their Parliaments, or, many of them, through referendums. The idea that when they have achieved ratification and have democratic mandates, including in many cases through a referendum, those countries will simply be prepared to tear up the whole project to accommodate this country is absurd. It would also be extraordinarily arrogant to assume such a thing.
	Those who talk about renegotiation cannot therefore mean renegotiating this treaty but the EU's continuing on the basis of this treaty and our renegotiating something other than full membership. We might be able to get back into the European Free Trade Association or to negotiate the kind of special associate status that the French recently proposed for the Turks, and which the Turks rejected because it was so insulting, but we certainly would not be full members. Above all, we would not be part of the decision-making structures or the structures of democratic accountability.
	I am always amazed when colleagues say, "Well, we could always negotiate some access to the single market." They appear to be happy with a situation in which we would have to observe the rules and the laws decided by the European Union while playing absolutely no part in it. We would find ourselves paying over taxpayers' money without any representation, as do current associates in the North American Free Trade Agreement, Switzerland and elsewhere. The prospect of taxation without representation seems to worry my colleagues not at all.
	The European Union is a formidable achievement. I need not dwell on the single market, because even Eurosceptics admit that it is vital that we remain part of that, whatever happens, but we do not talk about the human importance of the Union—the fact that it provides a larger stage for all of us, and our children, to conduct our lives and to exercise our liberties: not merely to trade, but to work, live and study on a much wider field than merely on this island.
	Over the years, it has proven a remarkable engine of peace. Let us consider some of the sources of conflict and bloodshed over centuries that it has dissolved over the past generation or two, such as Alsace-Lorraine and Alto Adige. As shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I came to the view that the only way of reconciling the views of those who want to remain part of this country and those who think it absolutely essential that they become part of the Republic of Ireland was within the context of a successful European Union, where the precise line of the frontier is no longer an existential matter, and certainly not one to die for.
	The EU represents the only way in which we can exercise any influence in the world on key issues for the future such as world trade, international stability, sources of tension and potential conflict, nuclear threats, terrorism, and sources of migration. We cannot possibly influence those things standing alone in this country, and it would be absurd to think that we could.
	Should we really walk away from all that because of this constitution? It would be completely crazy to do so given that 80 or 90 per cent. of it is a consolidation of what we have already signed up to, leaving six key changes, all of which seem to be very much in our favour. There are two substantive changes, the first of which is the mutual defence pact. We already have such a pact with 21 out of the 25 countries—it is called the Washington treaty. This simply removes the anomaly whereby we do not currently have a mutual defence pact with the Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria.
	The second substantive change concerns the common foreign and security policy and the Foreign Minister. This is triggered under the treaty only by unanimity. It makes no sense at all to say that we want to leave the mainstream of the European Union because of a common foreign policy, because we have a veto on every occasion before a such a policy can emerge.
	In addition, there are four procedural changes. On the two-and-a-half-year presidency, we all know that it does not make sense to continue with the six-month presidency and to have Malta and so forth as President of the Union. I have to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that their system of shared responsibility, as occurs in the Council of Ministers, makes no sense. In the Council of Ministers, responsibility can be divided up—one country can chair the trade and industry committee, another can chair the agriculture committee, and so on. The presidency cannot be divided up in that way.
	On double majority voting, I understand that the Spanish and the Poles did not want that because they had the artificial advantage of a weighting in their favour under the previous system, but I cannot see why it is in the British national interest that the Poles and the Spaniards should have that advantage.
	The yellow card system has been denounced as inadequate, but only a fool or a fanatic does not go for half a loaf instead of no bread. It would be nice to go further in giving national Parliaments an even greater role, but this is a major change in a positive direction, and I cannot believe that it is a reason for opposing the Bill.
	As for the new withdrawal procedure, I should have thought that my Eurosceptic colleagues would be delighted about that. Of course, Parliament is sovereign, and we always could have withdrawn, but that is now recognised in the treaty.
	All in all, I fail to understand the rationality of opposing this treaty from the point of view of the British national interest.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to participate in the debate because I tabled the first early-day motion that called for a referendum in May 2003. I was delighted when the Government decided to hold a referendum and I congratulate them on that. I understand that there was a little soul searching in Downing street before it happened, but the right conclusion was reached.

Denis MacShane: For you, anything.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I agree on that—as we do on so much.
	However, I remain profoundly opposed to the constitutional treaty. Along with millions of Labour supporters and trade unionists throughout Britain, I shall vote no in the referendum. I have often spoken about EU matters in the Chamber and I shall not dwell on all the issues today. I have reservations other than those that I shall express but other colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have covered them.
	The constitutional treaty is, at its heart, hostile to social democracy. The thrust of today's EU is deeply anti-socialist and the neo-liberal philosophy is being driven forward. There has been a conflict in the EU between the two forces and, unfortunately, the neo-liberal force is winning against the social democratic force. I want to reverse that drift.
	The drive to marketise and privatise public services under the bland-sounding term of liberalisation threatens to turn back the clock and unpick the fabric of social democracy, welfare states and social protection that has transformed the lives of working people in post-war Europe.
	We hear the term "flexible labour markets." A couple of years ago, I was on holiday in Portugal, and although my Portuguese is not good, I understood a sign on a building site that said, "No to flexible labour markets". The Portuguese construction workers understood perfectly what labour market flexibility means. The Swedish no in the referendum happened because Swedish social democrats and trade unionists perceived the threat and voted no.Where countries are already advanced in liberalising service areas, article III-148 of the treaty commits them to
	"undertake liberalisation of services beyond the extent required by the European framework laws".
	It gives the Commission more powers to promote privatisation of key public services.
	Even without the treaty, the new Commission attempted this week to relaunch what it described as the flagging Lisbon agenda. There is serious anxiety, especially among trade unionists, that that will be to the disadvantage of working people. The European Trade Union Confederation, which is now led by John Monks, a good friend and former colleague, stated:
	"This is a disappointing start for the new Commission because it risks presenting Europe as an agent for lower social standards, worse welfare states and poorer environmental standards".
	That is happening in the EU now and the treaty will reinforce it.
	The treaty will consolidate Maastricht and the Single European Act, both of which I opposed. I believed that the Common Market or European Community was jogging along nicely before the Single European Act, which constituted a step change towards a much more neo-liberal construct. That is where things went wrong. I would be happy to revert to the position before the Single European Act and I would probably complain only about the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We could work happily with our European colleagues on that basis.
	My colleagues have made several points about the referendum. I believe that the Electoral Commission has criticised the wording although it has acquiesced in what the Government have done. We probably will not be able to persuade the Government to make the wording more neutral, but it is significant that the Electoral Commission questioned it.
	It is right to place limits on campaign spending. I remember the 1975 referendum when the amount of money spent on the yes side was grotesque when compared with that spent on the no side. I was on the no side at the time, and I remember well the pathetic resources that we had, compared with the massive resources used to persuade people to vote yes. We want to see more balance this time.
	This referendum should not be held on the same day as other elections. We want a separate day for it, so that people can focus on the issue, rather than thinking, "Oh, well, it's just another election", which might lead them to vote yes or no in a casual way. They need to focus specifically on this important decision that Britain has to make. I also want a constituency count. My constituents know very well what my views are on these matters, but I would like to know what their views are. They might be different from mine, but I would like to know what they think. Every other hon. Member should also be aware of what their constituents are saying, so a constituency count would be important.
	It has been said that the constitutional treaty is just a "tidying-up exercise". If that were the case, it would not be that important if we did not adopt it, would it? We should still have what we have now, and it would not be that significant. However, so much effort is being put into ensuring that the whole of Europe votes for the treaty that I suspect that it is rather more important than just a "tidying-up exercise". There is a lot more to it than that.
	I have said before in debates on European matters that the constitutional treaty includes references to eurozone institutions. Those references should be taken out and voted on separately—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Angela Browning: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I have listened carefully to this afternoon's debate. I have had the opportunity to speak on this subject twice in the past year, and I do not want to repeat a lot of what I have already said. I would, however, like to build on some of the points that have been raised today.
	I do not regard the treaty as just another European treaty, and I certainly do not regard it as benign. We have to look at the end agenda. There are legitimate debates to be had on both sides of the argument. I say "both sides of the argument", rather than "both sides of the House" because this is not a party political issue. It is a matter of national importance involving our future relationship with the European Union. I have no problem with people who do not share my view that we have already gone too far down the road of European integration. However, I say to the Government—and I reflect on this in regard to previous Governments—that I have difficulty with the fact that, over the years, politicians have not spelled out clearly what they were signing up to in the name of the people. That has caused the feeling that we, as a nation, have lost control of our right to govern ourselves in many important areas of policy.
	I do not share the view that signing up to the common market, as it then was, led to peace in mainland Europe at the end of the last century. I respect the views of those who genuinely believe that, but I personally do not think that the common market prevented France and Germany from tearing each other apart as they have done in previous centuries. I believe that it was the presence of the Soviet bloc, the cold war and the formation of the NATO alliance and the link with north America that kept the peace in mainland Europe.
	We are talking about the type of relationship that we want with Europe. I fully share the views of those who have flagged up the additional powers in the treaty—the euro-creep, as it is euphemistically called. These significant powers are being given to people who have not been elected by the people of this country, and who are not answerable to us as our elected representatives. We cannot call them to the Dispatch Box to answer our questions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) so eloquently spelled out earlier, this illustrates the democratic deficit that we are experiencing.
	I know that this subject is not the public's idea of a hot political topic. They have more important things to concern them. However, if we do things by stealth in one treaty after another, and if we erode people's right to elect through the ballot box every four or five years those who make decisions on their behalf here, when they suddenly wake up to the fact that that right has gone, it will not simply be a matter of their not turning out to vote in general elections. Voter apathy will not be the only price that this country pays for such stealth; I believe that there will be a reaction on the part of the public when they realise that their democratic rights have been taken away from them. Yes, we all take our democratic rights for granted and it is already possible to see in some countries what can happen when extremism feeds on the lack of democratic accountability. It is a very dangerous path to go down.
	I say to Ministers and colleagues that, whatever side of the argument they are on and whatever they believe the right relationship between this country and the EU should be, at least be honest in telling people what is being done in their name. Let us not have spin or gloss; let us not keep telling people that they have not really signed up to this or that. They know. We all receive hundreds and hundreds of letters about it. The phone rings in the office: it is another small business; it is another person who wants to know why they have to do such and such, why they are bound by various rules. As their MP, I have to tell those people, "I am very sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it, because these decisions are not taken in the House of Commons. The people who have put these decisions before us are not the people"—

Quentin Davies: Blame No. 10.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend says, "Blame No. 10". Well, I was a Minister in the last Conservative Government and I have to tell him that, as a Minister, I had great difficulty trying to argue the case when some of these proposals were made.
	We talk about competition within the single market and I am a great believer in free trade, but there are 22 other countries out there that have free-trade agreements with the EU and a further 69 countries are currently negotiating such agreements. None of them is shackled by the regulation and statutory requirements that we have to face here. That is apparently the price that this country has to pay in order to be a member of this club. We hear all these euphemisms about where the train is going, what the destination is and so forth, but I say it is time to pull the communication cord.

William Cash: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, albeit at a somewhat late hour and with just six minutes to run. I am glad to see that the reasoned amendment that we shall vote on this evening bears fair comparison to the one that I tabled a few days ago. I am equally glad that the issue of supremacy, extensively discussed today, relates closely to the decision taken last week by my party to support a proposition that I tabled in an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill.
	The problem with the constitution, as I have said many times before, is the question of primacy. I do not need to repeat the argument today, as I have already explained it in my own terms over and over again. The plain fact is that the Foreign Secretary is blatantly wrong about the effect of the constitution on the United Kingdom. He mentioned the Vienna treaty, particularly article 27, but it is inconceivable that the people of this country could be governed on the basis of a decision taken by a treaty.
	I return to what the Foreign Secretary said about 18 months ago—that international treaties took precedence over national laws. That led to an exchange of correspondence, and a series of questions, between myself and him. At the end of that 18-month period, on 8 or 9 September last year, he effectively conceded in a debate that it was true that statute took precedence over treaty—as, indeed, Lord Diplock had made absolutely clear in an important case in 1967. It is good law.
	The way in which the Foreign Secretary replied to me yesterday in the European Scrutiny Committee is also inconceivable. I put it to him that the treaty could receive a no vote when the referendum is called and I asked him whether, if that happened, he would repeal the legislation that is being pushed through Parliament now because of the massive majority. He said that he would not repeal it, and then said—twice—that to do so would be a waste of time.
	What arrogance. The Foreign Secretary would not repeal this legislation, even though it had been rejected by the British people. He relies on his prerogative powers to tell the country what laws will govern it and the extent to which Parliament will be governed by the new EU constitution.
	The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) suggested that this treaty was just one in a series. That is arrant nonsense. Article 1.6 of the treaty states clearly that the EU constitution will take precedence over the laws of member states. When I put it to the Foreign Secretary that that precedence also included this country's constitution, he said that of course it did.
	On the question of European Court of Justice case law, the treaty makes it clear that article 1.6 reflects the Court of Justice's existing status in that respect, and of course it does. Yesterday, I discussed with the Foreign Secretary the matter of the competing jurisdictions that flow from the European Communities Act 1972. Evidence from distinguished academics on constitutional law makes it clear that our judges are duty bound to give effect to decisions made by the House of Commons on behalf of the British people. However, the European Court maintains that existing case law—such as Enel v. Costa, or the Simmenthal verdict—means that it has the right to decide questions of law in this country.
	The fundamental question is one of political will. Who governs this country? People have fought and died over that question.
	The Bill should be rejected. The referendum should be the subject of a separate Bill so that we can ensure that this country is governed by legislation passed by this House, whose composition is determined by the will of the British people as expressed in general elections.

Robert Walter: Some intriguing polls have been published in the past few days. In The Times, a Populus poll showed that 36 per cent. of people would say yes to the question whether we should approve the treaty, with 29 per cent. saying no. However, an ICM poll showed that 39 per cent. of people would respond negatively to the official question and that the same proportion—39 per cent.—would respond positively. When the same poll asked people whether they would sign up to the European constitution in a referendum held tomorrow, 54 per cent. said no and 26 per cent. said yes.
	A poll by the Institute of Directors found that 49 per cent. of its members intended to vote no in the referendum, with only 29 per cent. planning to vote yes. That caused IOD director general Miles Templeton to say:
	"Business leaders remain ready to hear the case for both sides."
	I shall use that as my starting point.
	I have been a great supporter of Britain's membership of the EU ever since we joined 30 years ago. However, I am seriously concerned that in that time we have failed to take the people with us on the journey that has been the EU's development and evolution. We have now reached the stage where most people have little understanding of, and little confidence in, what is being done in their names.
	Euroscepticism is not unique to Britain. It exists throughout Europe and the democratic deficit seems to be worse in some other European states, where people feel that it is inevitable and that they can do nothing about it. However, they will have the opportunity in referendums on the constitution to send a message to the political elites of Europe saying that they would like an explanation of what is going on and what has been done in their names during the past 30 years in this country, and somewhat longer in some other member states.
	For all the Foreign Secretary's spin on the treaty, it does not provide the answer. When I read the Laeken declaration back in 2001, I thought that we were beginning to go in the right direction and to pose some of the right questions. However, when I read the treaty—all 511 pages—I remembered one phrase from the Laeken declaration, which mentioned
	"Simplification of the Union's instruments".
	There is no simplification in the constitution, and it contains so much detail that it can hardly be described as a constitution; it is a management textbook. The explanatory commentary, which runs to 500 pages, is supposed to explain it to anyone who does not understand the first 500 or so pages. The constitution is nowhere near being a simplifying treaty. It contains minutiae of management detail that one would expect those responsible for looking after our interests to come up with as their modus operandi.
	Much of what is in the document could soon be out of date. What we now need is what the Laeken declaration referred to—the creation of European institutions that are closer to their citizens. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to the fact that the Council will make decisions in public. That goes some way towards making the institutions more transparent and accountable. However, what is the point of making the decisions in public, but not holding the general proceedings of the Council in public? That is rather like putting cameras in the Division Lobbies here but taking them out of the Chamber, so that we can carry on our business in secret.
	Most of our citizens support the broad aims of the Union, but they do not always see the connection between those goals and the Union's everyday actions. We all know that Europe has changed and is changing. With the 10 new countries that joined last year, it now has 25 member states. The enlarged Europe needs to be more effective and democratic, so we need a simple and transparent constitutional treaty, which is what the document was supposed to provide.
	An effective European Union is in Britain's interest and it is in our national interest to be a member of that Union, because we have so many aims in common. We need a new treaty that spells out in black and white the powers of the various parties. It should state explicitly that the EU has only the powers that member states choose to grant it. It should clarify what the EU can and cannot do.
	The constitution is unacceptable, but that does not mean that I have become anti-European, that I do not want the European Union to succeed, or that I want us to be relegated to the position of Norway and Switzerland, with an expensive, subservient and passive relationship with the European Union. That is not an option for the British people. We need a tidying-up and simplifying treaty, but that is not what we have. I can happily say that the leaders of Europe should go back and reconsider the constitution.

Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who put his pro-European case against the constitution before us. It may be helpful if, at the outset, I put on the record the reference for which the Father of the House asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It was a reference to comments made to the European Scrutiny Committee by Professor Sir David Edward. On the subject of the so-called emergency brake, he said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan):
	"The procedure involves going up to the European Council but the brake is not absolute. I think it is at that point that politics would overcome law, so to speak."
	That is the reference that was sought.
	We have had a splendid debate, with a good tone to all the contributions. We enjoyed particularly the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) revealing the secret about the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) frothing at the mouth during difficult EU negotiations on the treaty of Nice, and the right hon. Member for Livingston saying that the treaty did not involve any significant extension of competences. As he must well know, however, the list of 63 extensions of qualified majority voting is on the record. It includes such things as social security, structural and cohesion funds, agriculture and fisheries, transport, space policy, energy, culture, tourism, sport, civil protection—and much more that I do not have time to read into the record. Those are all new transfers to qualified majority voting—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that they are not new competences—but they are new to qualified majority voting. I hope that he now accepts that point.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman's reference is accurate in that I said that there was no substantial extension of competence. None of the list that he has given argues that I was in any way wrong about that. He is talking about something entirely different: an extension of qualified majority voting. In the European Union, 85 per cent. of all decisions are already taken by qualified majority voting, primarily because the 12 extensions of qualified majority voting under the Single European Act, passed by a Conservative Government, are the basis on which the great majority of decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers.

Graham Brady: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making it clear that we are both talking about an increased transfer of powers from the House and the United Kingdom to the European Union—[Interruption.] He is starting to froth at the mouth again; he really should try to contain himself.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston also made much of the public meetings that the Council of Ministers will hold. I heard the Foreign Secretary's comments in front of the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday, however, and he made it clear that decisions must still be made behind closed doors, and that the decision-making process would not work if it was in public. We are therefore hearing different things from different Labour Members.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston also said that a vote against the constitution was a vote against the modern world. In 1999, however, on 25 May, at column 184, he also said:
	"For the record, we are not proposing a constitution of Europe."—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]
	Was he then saying no to the modern world?
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) seemed to suggest that Parliament could not exercise powers not to follow the decision taken by the Executive to endorse this treaty, putting the Liberal Democrats firmly under the royal prerogative and apparently denying the right of the House to make such decisions.
	One of the greatest pleasures in the debate, however, was the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who spoke about public disaffection with the political process and the extent to which the public see a gulf between the people and the institutions of Government. As he said, this constitution will make it worse, citing instances from food supplements to asylum policy.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke of his strong opposition to referendums. We differ from his views but respect his principle and consistency in these as in other matters. He put the view that Ministers are weakened by the use of referendums. All that I would say on that is that Ministers are weakened only if they are out of tune with the views of the people. We are in tune with the views of the British people, and we will be strengthened by the referendum if we see that no vote, whenever it may come.
	The House has, in the short time allowed, been discussing a momentous decision. Contrary to the Government's claims, the new constitution would be a decisive step towards political integration. If we talk to politicians or diplomats anywhere in Europe, they will tell it to us straight: the constitution is part of the process of creating an economically and politically integrated Europe. Only in Downing street or the Foreign Office is the pretence maintained that this is a mere codification of existing treaties.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Brady: I will not, because I have limited time. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
	But even as the Government try to flog this outrageous porkie to the British people, they cannot get their own story straight. On the "Today" programme this morning, the Foreign Secretary said that the constitution
	"literally limits the powers of the European Union",
	and that
	"What this does is say 'this far and no further'".
	That directly contradicts the Prime Minister, who claimed in Cardiff on 28 November 2002 that
	"we must end the nonsense of 'this far and no further'".
	It also contradicts the Minister for Europe, who said at Durham university in November that "this treaty"—the constitution—
	"won't be the last word".
	The Government maintain that the constitution is a great triumph for Britain, but as we heard earlier, the French are giving the game away. We have heard the views of President Chirac and of Alain Lamassoure, both of whom have made it clear that the constitution is regarded as a victory for the French vision of Europe over the Anglo-Saxon vision. Nicolas Sarkozy, leader of the UMP, said:
	"If the French said 'no' in the referendum, it would be the British, who want a fiercely competitive market, who would triumph".
	The fact is that whatever this untrustworthy Government say, the British people have the good sense to see through it, and so, I am thankful to say, does British industry.
	There is emerging evidence that the referendum question may need changing, but we welcome the fact that the Bill does provide for a referendum. Indeed, the British people are being allowed one only because of the pressure being applied by the Opposition. This Government saw no lofty principle in the idea that the voice of the British people should be heard. They struggled, blustered and resisted, but then, as the Minister for Europe told the New Statesman—I am paraphrasing, but one can imagine the scene as he and the Foreign Secretary sit there side by side—"I turned to Jack and I said, 'Jack, we're stuffed. We've got to give a referendum. I don't think we can hold out.'"
	Now we have the Government's grubby attempt to push the referendum back to autumn 2006—the very last moment—to prevent the people from having their say. What rich irony there is in a Prime Minister who once boasted of wanting Britain to lead the way in Europe now being found cowering in a corner, hoping and praying that the French vote no and get him off the hook. Even now, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, the Government are trying to pull a fast one by smuggling the 448-article European constitution through Parliament via five clauses of an incomprehensible Bill that is supposedly about the referendum.
	In promoting this constitution, the Government are missing the real challenges for Europe, including sorting out the mess of the EU institutions, which are riddled with financial mismanagement and fraud and have not been approved by the auditors for 10 years. Moreover, Britain's net contribution to EEC institutions is projected to rise, according to the Chancellor's own figures, from £2.4 billion in 2003–04 to £4.5 billion in 2007–08. Perhaps the Minister will explain in his response why such an increase is necessary.

Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Brady: As I said earlier, I do not really have time to give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
	Why have the Government done nothing to tackle the scandal of the EU accounts, and why, when I asked in November, had the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary not even bothered to discuss the problem that needed to be tackled?

Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Graham Brady: On that point, yes.

Quentin Davies: I am most grateful. My hon. Friend will doubtless be aware that the auditors have invariably signed off the accounts of the Commission and the Union's institutions; the problem has been that many of the disbursements are carried out through the mechanisms of the member states. I do not imagine that my hon. Friend is proposing the very federalist and centralising idea that the Commission take over responsibility for disbursing all these sums, even if that might lead to greater transparency and a better audit record.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right in at least one respect, in that I do not propose that idea. But I should point out that one of the most scandalous examples of fraud in the EU involved EUROSTAT, and money that was directly controlled by the Commission. Indeed, it was one of the most startling instances of financial mismanagement and malpractice. Amazingly, the Chancellor has not taken the trouble to talk to Marta Andreasen, the whistleblower who exposed EU fraud and who was fired for her trouble.
	The real challenge is not—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said so powerfully—creating a constitution that cedes more powers to Europe and takes decisions further and further away from the people, but tackling the massive burden of cost and regulation that is holding back our businesses and making them compete against China and India with one hand tied behind their backs. That is why such a large majority in British business oppose the constitution. An Institute of Directors poll found that 86 per cent. of its members believe that the constitution would mean more red tape, while 3 per cent. of them believe that it would reduce red tape.
	The EU economy has stalled. A few weeks ago, the United States National Intelligence Council issued a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects:
	"The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."
	It adds that the EU's economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Structural reforms in Germany, and to a lesser extent in France and Italy, remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow growth pattern".
	The only action proposed by the EU is yet another relaunch of the Lisbon agenda. The response is set out in the joint statement by the Irish, Dutch, Luxembourg, UK, Austrian and Finnish presidencies called, "Advancing regulatory reform in Europe":
	"The four Presidency statement drew attention to the economic cost of poor and excessive regulation, and the benefits that respected and independent research shows could flow to European growth and productivity from improvements to the regulatory framework . . . . The Spring Council focused in particular on refining the integrated impact assessment process, by enhancing a competitiveness dimension, and on developing a methodology to measure administrative burdens for business. It also invited the Commission to take account of the Council's views in relation to priority areas for simplification and invited member states to commit to accelerated implementation of national regulatory reform initiatives . . . This statement, presented at the end of the Dutch Presidency of the EU"—
	this is priceless—
	"builds on the valuable progress that has been made by the European Commission, Council and Parliament over the course of the year and sets out our objectives for reform in the coming years."
	Instead of action, we get statements filled with vague aspirations and meaningless words—the EU just does not get it.
	Only by rejecting the constitution can we lead Europe to a better, freer and more prosperous future. Astonishingly, however, this clapped-out Government have no plan for the way forward if one or more of the member states votes no. Ministers even admit that they have no plan B. Having started off opposing the constitution, they have no idea what to do when there is no constitution.
	We know what to do. A Conservative Government would lead the way towards a more flexible, less regulated Europe that recognises the differences between 25 different cultures and economies. Some 20 years on, there is a widespread acceptance in the EU that for Europe to compete, it needs the kind of economic reform and deregulation that Conservative Governments brought to this country in the 1980s and 1990s. The tragic lesson of the Lisbon process is that Europe does not know how to do that. Given the choice between real deregulation and increasing the jurisdiction of EU institutions and adding new layers of bureaucracy, the wrong decision has been taken yet again.
	Conservative Members will be proved right on today's big constitutional question, just as we won the economic arguments of the past 20 years, and the rejection of the constitution presents a huge opportunity for Britain, and for Europe as a whole. In a recent debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—it is sad that she is not here today, because she contributes well—said that the proponents of the constitution often seem like old men talking about their dreams. Those dreams may have had a place in post-war Europe, but they have no relevance to the Europe of today.
	The real challenge in modern Europe is not internal aggression, but external competition, a challenge that the EU is disastrously failing to meet. Instead, we have the so-called Lisbon agenda, which halfway through its 10-year programme was described by the President of the Commission as a "catalogue of worthy aims". Europe is subject to continuing economic stagnation, over-regulation and rising costs. In the words of Derek Scott, a popular figure in this debate and the Prime Minister's former chief economic adviser, the constitution would
	"entrench Europe's economic failings and drag Britain down".
	However out of touch the metropolitan clique around the Prime Minister may be, I know that many Labour Members are not so out of touch with the people whom they represent. Those Members know that their constituents do not want this latest shift of powers from our democracy. They know, too, that this constitution would be bad for Britain. If they vote for the amendment, they, like us, will be able to stand on the doorstep at the forthcoming election, look their constituents in the eye and say that they have represented the interests of their constituents and of our country.
	I urge all hon. Members to do what is right this evening, and to vote to reject this outdated and unwanted constitution.

Denis MacShane: We have had a good debate; 26 colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members, have spoken. It is the most enjoyable European debate that I have listened to during the decade or more that I have been a Member of the House. Colleagues have responded to one another and taken forward proper dialogue and discussion. For the most part, there have been no set-piece, speak-your-weight, pre-written speeches.
	The debate is part of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's clear commitment to bring these issues to Parliament. Since the intergovernmental conference of October 2003, we have had no fewer than 16 debates, 14 of them on the Floor of the House, which have dealt wholly or in large part with the EU constitutional treaty. There have been a further 13 debates in the House of Lords. Commons European Scrutiny Committees and House of Lords European Committees have undertaken detailed inquiries into aspects of the treaty. Ministers, including myself, have given evidence. There have been Westminster Hall debates and, of course, the unprecedented creation of a Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference—the only time in parliamentary history when Members have been allowed to question Ministers about the negotiation of a treaty while it was under way.
	We want to maintain that, which is why I welcome the part of the new treaty that strengthens the role of national Parliaments. It is true that we shall have to adapt our ways of thinking. We shall need to talk and communicate with colleagues in other national Parliaments, but Labour and other Members will want to use the occasion of the treaty to strengthen parliamentary accountability for what is done in our name in Europe.

Angus Robertson: rose—

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber throughout the debate but has not spoken, so I shall give way. I do not, however, want to take many interventions because I want to answer the points made in the debate.

Angus Robertson: I want to pick up on a point that has not been covered so far. Part of the Bill that I very much welcome is the innovation that, should the treaty go through, any future amendment must go through the House. As the Scottish Parliament will be involved in that, under the yellow card arrangements, will the Minister tell us what thought has gone into the involvement of devolved institutions in aspects where sovereignty is shared between them and the European Union, and not the House?

Denis MacShane: The yellow card issue is for national Parliaments. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a procedure known as a Sewel motion that allows the Scottish Parliament to take forward relevant matters under the treaty. I hope that we can have a full discussion of that.
	I have some good news for the Conservatives. Yesterday, the Conservative—believe me, it is very conservative—party in Denmark won a thumping victory in their national elections. The new Prime Minister, Mr. Fogh Rasmussen, who is a very conservative European gentleman, said that the first priority for his new Government was to get the constitutional treaty through in Denmark. I am sure that all Conservatives in the House will join us in wishing him full speed.
	There are three broad questions we have to consider. This has been a wide-ranging debate, but, my goodness, it has not actually been on the Bill itself. We have been up and down the highways and byways of the problems of Europe: how Europe is run, the economies of Europe, and the fraud and mismanagement of accounts in Europe. Those are all important issues, but they are not remotely relevant to what we shall have to vote on shortly.
	The second part of the Bill relates to the referendum, while the first part gives effect to the part of the treaty that requires a change in our domestic law. That is normal in treaties. The question of "the question" has been raised. I am glad that, in a statement to the Press Association on 26 January, the Leader of the Opposition said:
	"We do accept the question."
	On the same day, the shadow Foreign Secretary said:
	"The referendum question seems straightforward."
	I am glad that we have their agreement on that.

Michael Ancram: I have written to the Foreign Secretary to ask about the terminology that describes the treaty. Why does the treaty refer to the establishment of a constitution for Europe, when the question refers to the establishment of a treaty for the European Union? I am sure that there is a very simple explanation—it would be nice to have it.

Denis MacShane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be resiling from what he said a few weeks ago.

Michael Ancram: Answer the question.

Denis MacShane: I will answer the point in my own way. The Electoral Commission has considered the intelligibility of the question against its published guidelines, and it said:
	"The Commission welcomes the brevity of the proposed question . . . The Commission is content that the question is structured in such a way that it prompts an immediate response and encourages each voter to interpret it in the same way . . . The Commission is satisfied that the referendum question makes it . . . clear what decision the voter is being asked to make."
	If the right hon. and learned Gentleman turns to article I-1 of the treaty, he will see that it says that
	"this Constitution establishes the European Union."
	So it does seem fairly sensible to put that question to the British people.
	The third point is that this is a treaty under international law. Winston Churchill notably said that jaw-jaw was better than war-war, but in a sense what we have been developing in the United Kingdom, particularly since 1945, between the parties is the idea that there is obviously one thing better than war-war—jaw-jaw—and that there is one thing better than jaw-jaw, and it is law-law: we can shape the rule of law that governs many of our international relations. Churchill himself signed 162 multilateral treaties. Lady Thatcher signed 316 multilateral treaties—she really was a treaty queen—and the present Prime Minister has signed only 153 multilateral treaties, but he has a number of years in office to continue, and that 153, of course, includes the new treaty of Rome.
	Let me now turn to what is actually on the Order Paper. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I refer to what we must vote on tonight. The Conservative party in the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition says that the treaty
	"provides for the implementation into UK law of the Constitution for Europe".
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right: every time that we have signed a treaty, we have had to change domestic law. The amendment continues:
	"it enshrines the primacy of European Union law."
	Again, he is perfectly right: that has been the case since 1972. As is made clear in article I-6 of the treaty:
	"The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
	That has been the case now for 32 years.

William Cash: rose—

Denis MacShane: Hon. Members will also note that, under article I-11 of the treaty,
	"the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it".

Several hon. Members: rose—

Denis MacShane: I am trying to reply to the points made in the speeches. A number of colleagues referred to fisheries policy, which has been included in all the treaties since 1972.

William Cash: rose—

Denis MacShane: Other colleagues have referred to directives under the Single European Act. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made a powerful point, but he was talking about what is contained in the Single European Act. As other hon. Members noted in the speeches that they made after he left the Chamber, the thrust of his speech was very much against the Single European Act. That shows the huge danger that we now face.
	The Conservative party is embarked on saying no not just to this treaty, but to the treaty before it, the treaty before that and, above all, the crowning jewel of Lady Thatcher's achievement under the Single European Act, which was to make market economic relations the norm in the European Union. That is buttressed by the social chapter, and in a powerful speech that set the tone for our debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) cited the treaty at length and showed the extent to which it contains references to what citizens want to hear: the guarantee of their social rights and the guarantee of full employment.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Denis MacShane: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.

Denis MacShane: The amendment contains the extraordinary allegation that the new treaty
	"promotes the concept of a common foreign and security policy".
	What a surprise! That has been in every treaty since Maastricht. The whole idea of a common foreign and security policy was first put forward by Lady Thatcher in a famous speech in 1984. Here we are, 21 years later, and the Conservative party finds that the new treaty refers to a common foreign and security policy.
	May I especially pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who will be leaving us after the election? In a characteristically calm, measured and steady speech, she showed just how much she has contributed to the House for a number of years on Europe—we will miss what she has to say. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) will not be coming back to the House after the election. He spoke by representing his trade union, Amicus—it used to be known as the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—which has always taken a constructive and positive position on Europe. We have heard the opening shots of the giant campaign on whether we say yes or no to Europe through the referendum, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will play a part in it.
	I cannot let the speech made by the shadow Foreign Secretary go by. Most of it was a kind of Lord Rothermere rant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been a perfect Chamberlain-ite during the 1930s with his obscure conversion to isolation, because we know that he is a pro-European and a one-nation Tory. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) might have to toe the party line today and say no, the Marquis of Lothian will say yes when the referendum comes.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman prayed in aid Ben Bot. I agree with Mr. Bot because I think that we need more power for Parliaments—there is a way forward for that in the constitution. However, Mr. Ben Bot, the Dutch Foreign Minister, of course signed the constitution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also prayed in aid Mrs. Thatcher's sturdy work to secure the abatement, but she achieved that only because she won a majority set of votes in the then Council of Ministers and the measure was not written into the treaty. That shows exactly why we have to keep negotiating on the many great interests that we must defend in Europe, but we would not be able to do that if we followed the advice of the Conservative party and isolated ourselves permanently from it.
	I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He located the debate in history and recalled why the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. Some dismiss the question of peace, stability and democracy as irrelevant, but is it not interesting that Lithuania, Slovenia and Hungary, the three member states that have already ratified the treaty, are all countries that know the effect of the absence of the European Union, the rule of law and democracy?
	The House must make a decision tonight. I am grateful for the measured tone of much of the debate, although I cannot address all the issues raised by hon. Members. I am especially grateful for the tone of those who said that we should vote for the referendum tonight and perhaps leave debate on the constitutional treaty itself for another day. Tonight the House must fundamentally decide whether it wants to move Britain forward, not back. Forty years ago, a Labour leader announced that entering Europe would mean the end of 1,000 years of English history.
	Rab Butler, a Conservative leader, said that while he respected the reference to 1,000 years of history—[Interruption.] He was the best Prime Minister the Conservatives never had. He said that while he respected the reference to 1,000 years of English history, the Conservatives believed in the future. That was then; today they do not. Like the fantasy island where all the asylum seekers will be placed, they believe in a fantasy Europe—a Europe to which they can say no, and then the rest of Europe will quietly say yes to the demands of the Conservative party. To read the Conservatives' language and to listen to some of their contributions today is to enter a world of make-believe.
	Reference has been made to the length of the treaty. I have it here in a reduced form. It is about 150 pages long and quite readable. It is half the length in words of the excellent biography of William Pitt by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and a lot shorter than the latest book by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), "Singing the Blues", in which he discusses the view that, in negotiating with Europe, the threat of withdrawal should be used only as a last resort. He writes:
	"I liken it to the use of nuclear weapons before you have tried invasion by conventional forces."
	What a remarkable metaphor. His friend and fellow European, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr.   Heathcoat-Amory), who has taken part in this debate, goes a step further. Speaking at the Conservative party conference, he said:
	"If we vote 'no' in a referendum on the constitution, the world is at our feet. We could unilaterally call for the repatriation of the Common Fisheries Policy and dictate to the rest of the EU".
	Dictate to the rest of the EU? Even if there is a no vote, it still leaves us with the existing constitution of Europe, a mishmash of treaties, so we could repatriate the fisheries or other policies only by being in breach of existing treaty obligations. But I leave that for a later debate.
	What an amazing language this is: the nuclear option from the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the world at the feet of the right hon. Member for Wells: pressing the nuclear button and dictating to Europe. Wokingham and Wells, the Ant and Dec of the anti-European movement. At least Robert Kilroy-Silk, our former colleague, was honest when he described—[Hon. Members: "What?"]—when he described the people that he worked with in the United Kingdom Independence party as a bunch of right-wing fascist nutters. UKIP responded by putting out an immediate statement saying that it was true that UKIP had a right-wing fascist nutter element, but Robert Kilroy-Silk had now left the party.
	What, alas, we have heard today in too many speeches from the main Opposition party is language to appease UKIP and not promote Britain. I would say to the Conservative party, appeasement and isolation is never the way forward. Every other mainstream Conservative party in Europe understands the need to support this new treaty. I have to say, on the day after President Bush sends his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to open, as she put it, a
	"new chapter in the relationship between"
	the United States and Europe, we hear from Conservative Front-Bench Members only arguments about isolating ourselves from Europe.
	What a message to send to the world—to the investors who want to come here and to those who have already ratified the new treaty. The Conservative party wants to plunge Britain into a feast of hostility to Europe over the next few months and the next year. Little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition is totally unwelcome in Washington, just as he is unwanted in Europe and unelectable in Britain. This party, this Government, and I believe a majority of us in the House and the nation, will not allow the Tories to turn the clock back to their vision of Europe—a Europe of conflict instead of co-operation, of beef wars and empty chairs, of rejecting partnership.
	This treaty is good for Britain. We will defeat the isolationists. We will move forward with Britain and not back to the anti-European isolationism of the Conservatives. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 348.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading)
	The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 130.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

EUROPEAN UNION BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83(A),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee
	2.—(1)   Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in three days.
	(2)   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the second column.
	(3)   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House.
	TABLE
	
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion ofproceedings   
			 First and second day 
			 Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedule 2, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating to Part 1 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. 
			 Clause 5, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2 The moment of interruption on the second day or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Clause 5, whichever is the later. 
			 Third day 
			 Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 and 8, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Schedules relating to Part 3, remaining proceedings on the Bill Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on Clause 6. 
		
	
	Consideration and Third Reading
	3.   Any proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on the day on which they are commenced, whichever is the earlier.
	5.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of other proceedings
	6.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department by virtue of the Act; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;
	(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—
	(a) charges paid by the Electoral Commission in respect of services rendered, or expenses incurred, by or on behalf of the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer in connection with the referendum for which the Act provides;
	(b) sums payable in respect of increases of superannuation contributions required to be paid by local authorities in consequence of fees paid as part of those charges;
	(c) sums in respect of expenses incurred in accordance with an order relating to the holding or conduct of a referendum in Gibraltar;
	(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and falling to be paid out of that Fund under any other Act;
	(3) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other Act.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) charges to taxation of the European Union that is to be established by the Treaty signed at Rome on 29th October 2004 establishing a Constitution for Europe;
	(2) the modification of the power of the Treasury by order under the European Communities Act 1972 to make provision about the imposition of customs duties on goods; and
	(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of sums received by a Minister of the Crown or government department by virtue of the Act.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

A14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the A14 in Cambridgeshire and I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) are in their place this evening. I hope that they will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the road runs through their constituencies as much—in some cases more—than mine and it affects all three of us.
	Before dealing directly with the main issue, I want to express to the Minister in the strongest possible terms my anger at how I have been treated by the Highways Agency over the last few days. On Monday, I requested the latest information on traffic volumes to prepare for this debate. After several prevaricating and clarifying conversations, my office was informed at nearly 5 pm this afternoon that the Minister's office had refused to release the information—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to be suggesting that that is untrue, but if he listens, I will tell him exactly what happened. That fact was confirmed to me by his office as being in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Subsequently, his office claimed that he had given permission for the information to be released, for which I am grateful, but I shall show that I have been given only partial answers to some of my questions. I have to question the basis of a freedom of information Act that apparently relies on a Minister to decide whether or not information should be released.
	The critical issue to all three of us—it has been for many years—is the A14. Prior to 1997, most of the route from the Suffolk border almost as far as Huntingdon was in my constituency. Now, my patch includes only the section east of the Girton interchange. This debate is primarily about the sector from what is known as the Spittals interchange at Huntingdon to the A10 junction in my constituency.
	The road is of local and national significance. It is the main commercial route between the west midlands and our biggest container port in Felixstowe. It is the main north-south route to east London, docklands and the channel crossing. Indeed, it is signposted as such on the A1. Within a few short miles, six lanes become four, then two—yet the traffic does not diminish. The stretch eastward from Girton is also the Cambridge bypass, but it is also a local road, which people have to use to get to and from Cambridge to work or study.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided that we must have 47,500 new homes in the Cambridge sub-region, including a new town at Northstowe, a few miles east of the A14. That development cannot go ahead without A14 improvements. That is not just my view; it is the considered view of Cambridgeshire Horizons, the organisation representing all the local authorities, businesses, the university and others who are taking the development forward.
	On the matter of the road conditions, anyone using it will, anecdotally, testify to the problems, particularly daily traffic jams at peak times, often stretching for several miles. Local and national radio traffic flashes feature the A14 probably more than any other road in the country. One constituent wrote to me over the weekend:
	"The journey time to Peterborough can now take anywhere from 1–2 hours. I never know what time I will arrive at the office or what time I will arrive home".
	Those anecdotes are supported by the few statistics that I do have. Traffic volumes between the Hinchingbrooke and Girton interchanges—not quite the whole length that we are discussing—have increased from 63,000 in 1997 to almost 72,000 in 2003. It worries me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government and the Highways Agency are so anxious not to publish all the figures, presumably because the picture is so awful.
	What I can tell the House, as the county council kindly provided me with the information, is that, sadly, there has been an increase in accidents over the last nine years—not a politically significant period. Particularly on the stretch to which I referred, the number of accidents has risen by almost 40 per cent. I understand that it was particularly bad for two years, in 2000 and 2001, and it improved a little after that. It is now worsening again. Last year, there were 106 accidents in which, sadly, four people lost their lives, 232 were seriously injured and 148 slightly injured. The accident figures show that the accident rate per million vehicle kilometres on this critical stretch of road has increased from 0.13 in 1997, to 0.15 in 2003. That means that the road has become 15 per cent. more dangerous over that period.
	Behind those statistics lie some very personal matters. One of them is the huge cost and distress inflicted on people caught up in the aftermath of accidents. It is not unknown for the road to be closed for many hours; it was closed for a whole day on one occasion last year. I received an e-mail from a consultant working in the accident and emergency department at Addenbrooke's hospital. He said:
	"As an A and E consultant at Addenbrooke's hospital . . . I sadly see all to frequently the so many badly injured people from the notorious A14 motorway. A large number of us doctors, nurses and other staff spend hours, days, weeks and months putting their shattered bodies back together again and hopefully their lives too. Unfortunately, many succumb, leaving behind their families to pick up the pieces."
	The consultant continues:
	"I believe that if the A14 is improved, we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of motor vehicle crashes, with an associated reduction in the number of deaths and seriously injured patients. There is robust scientific evidence that such road improvements and other preventative measures make a difference and lead to fewer and less serious injuries."
	That consultant sees the real impact of what has not been achieved. However, there is also environmental damage. We all know that slow-moving traffic is a serious cause of pollution. There is also the impact on all villages in the area. The county council is spending thousands of pounds on traffic calming measures to deter the many drivers who use the villages as rat runs to avoid the A14. The county council itself is seriously affected in a direct way because it is prevented from making plans to improve various other roads locally because it does not know what is happening to the intersections on the A14.
	A former roads Minister said:
	"the No. 1 priority for East Anglia has been the A14. That dual carriageway trunk road all the way from the M1 . . . to Felixstowe is one of the key strategic routes for the region . . . The A14 is . . . one of the 14 Christopherson priority projects for the European Community and it is eligible for some funding from the trans-European networks budget.—[Official Report, 14 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1117.]
	That was John Watts, in 1996.
	The present Government inherited a scheme between junction 14 on the M11 and the A1-M1 link—that is, to Huntingdon—and £122.3 million was allocated to meet the standard cost. By 1998, the scheme had been downgraded from "scheme in preparation" to one that was
	"subject to further studies and/or consultation by regional planning conferences."
	In 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire held an Adjournment debate on the A14. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), replied by previewing the multi-modal study that was finally completed in 2001. It recommended extra lanes for most of the existing dual carriageway, with a new southern bypass for Huntingdon. It also recommended a public transport system along the lines of the old St. Ives railway, to take some commuter traffic off the A14 and to serve Northstowe. The present Minister is aware that the county council has proposed a controversial guided bus system, and we await the outcome of the public inquiry.
	The Secretary of State for Transport announced a project worth £490 million to build a three-lane carriageway and a southern bypass for Huntingdon. That was on April Fool's day, 2003—and perhaps that was no coincidence—but we all cheered, and there is no getting away from that. He said that the improved road was expected to open around 2010, and added that the Highways Agency would develop the scheme to the stage where the public could be consulted.
	That was almost two years ago. Just before Christmas 2004, the present Minister said that the public consultation had been put back to allow more time for the Highways Agency to consider an alternative proposal—as if the multi-modal study had not had time and opportunity to consider all options.
	Replying to questions from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the Minister said that the consultation could start in spring 2005, and that he hoped that slippage would be slight. He told the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that it was incumbent on the Government to "tackle the worst first", and that the greatest problem had to be dealt with first. But when the Cambridge Evening News, which is rightly campaigning for the improvements, phoned the Highways Agency, it was told that there was no priority list and that the agency could not name another A road in more need of upgrading than the A14. That statement was confirmed to me by the Minister's office today.
	It is now February 2005 and, as far as my constituents are concerned, we are getting nowhere. In the view of the Cambridge Evening News, it is "Delay, delay, delay". I look not for pleasantries from the Minister tonight, but for real commitments. He may wish to dismiss my comments as electioneering and seek to reassure us that all is on track. Frankly, nobody will believe him. Every local authority involved in Cambridgeshire Horizons, the chamber of commerce, the local papers and all the businesses in the area are convinced that no progress has been made. As a constituent said to me in an email:
	"No-one in the Highways Agency appears to be taking control of this matter. This would not be allowed in a PLC, heads would roll and so they should."
	Will the Minister tell us when the public consultation will begin? He should by now be able to be absolutely specific—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has some detail of previous promises on that point. Will a public inquiry be necessary or can the Minister assure us that that can be avoided? If we must have one, when will it be and how much delay would it involve? Most importantly, when will we see some action? Can the Minister confirm that the announcement of £490 million in 2003 is still in the programme? When does he expect soil to be shifted and work to begin? When does he expect the new road to be open? Given the delays that have occurred and the increasing problems that I have described, I believe that the people of Cambridgeshire are entitled to the answers.

Andrew Lansley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for permitting me to make a short contribution. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on presenting it so comprehensively and expertly. I know that my constituents will be grateful to him for the way in which he has presented the issue.
	My hon. Friend kindly mentioned that I had also brought up the issue on 16 December 1998. It is now six years later. Since then, my hon. Friend and I have fought for the multimodal study on the Huntingdon to Cambridge corridor to be put into tranche 1, because the Government were going to put it into tranche 2. After it came out of tranche 2, we had to fight for the right route to be selected. Then we had to fight for it to be put into the targeted programme of improvements. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we thought—given the Government's rhetoric—that the targeted programme of improvements equalled a commitment to proceed with a small number of projects on the fastest possible timetable, so that something would actually happen.
	My hon. Friend rightly said that some villages are deeply affected by this issue. He knows that because he represented them in the past. I have represented them since 1997, and they include Bar Hill, Lolworth, Conington, Longstanton and Oakington. It is virtually impossible to leave those villages or to travel south or north when the A14 is blocked—and that is often the case. That makes life in those villages intolerable and it is vital that we have a public consultation on the route as quickly as possible, so that the people living in those villages can see an end in sight to the blight on their lives.
	My hon. Friend said that I had more detail on the date of the public consultation and indeed I do. I wrote to the Highways Agency in June and it told me in a letter later that month that the public consultation would start in September 2004. It did not. I wrote to the Minister in October and he replied the same month, saying:
	"We now expect to start public consultation on proposals for the scheme in December."
	I wrote to the Minister in November, but he replied that there was
	"nothing to be gained by rushing this stage . . . public consultation is now expected to start early in the New Year."
	I wrote to him in December, when he replied:
	"This will delay the public consultation until the Spring of next year."
	Well, if we look outside at the weather, it would appear that spring has arrived. I wrote to the Minister in January and he replied on 1 February. All that he could say was that
	"You will be advised as soon as a date is fixed for the public consultation."
	As my hon. Friend said, it is now approaching two years since the targeted programme of improvements was announced. I said back in 1998 that it would be unacceptable for it to be as long as 10 years before work was undertaken on this road. We are now approaching the point at which it will go beyond 10 years, and it is indeed unacceptable.

Jonathan Djanogly: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing this debate and thank him for allowing me a couple of valuable minutes in which to speak.
	The people of Huntingdonshire are tired—tired of constantly hearing of the accidents and deaths on the A14, tired of their inability to get around Cambridgeshire, tired of diversions, tired of A14 accident traffic running through their villages, and tired of this Government's consistent shilly-shallying, delaying and false raising of hopes.
	I have written more letters to Ministers and asked more written and oral questions on the A14 than on any other issue. Much good it seems to have done anyone. Every few months, there is a new reason for delay and some lame excuse from Ministers. In December, the Minister wrote to me that the consultation was delayed from January to spring 2005. He has not, however, seemed in much of a hurry to set a date.
	In demanding action on behalf of my constituents, I make three brief points. First, last Saturday, I talked to a pre-eminent research doctor who lives in my constituency. He works in Cambridge, but is now considering moving because of his inability to commute on the A14. Thus we see the ripple effect out from Cambridge— which is meant to be a regional priority—going into reverse. We all have big plans for the eastern region, but if this road is not sorted out, those plans are next to useless, as will be this Government's plans to build thousands more houses in the region.
	Secondly, the Government must start to put the A14 plans in the context of the separate plan for the A1 and the A428. I have been shocked at how disjointed the Government are on what is meant to be multi-modal transport.
	Thirdly this is a national problem. If every local car between Huntingdon and Cambridge were taken off the road, traffic would decrease by less than 5 per cent. on the A14. Therefore, while better local public transport is welcome, it will do next to nothing in itself to solve the problem of what is the main road from the docks to the west midlands.
	With rail expansion simply not happening, the Government owe it to the people of my constituency, the region and the country to get the new A14 built and to do it now.

David Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing this debate, and on giving the House an opportunity to discuss this section of the A14. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman started the debate in rather a churlish manner, and complained about the way in which he said that he was treated by my office. He requested some information in an e-mail—I have it here—that arrived at 6.19 pm on Monday.

James Paice: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: No, not for a moment. The hon. Gentleman will listen to what I have to say now.
	At 6.19 pm on Monday, the hon. Gentleman requested some information via a complex set of questions, and my officials set about putting the information together for him the next morning. The information arrived in my office at 2 o'clock today, and as soon as possible I made sure that the information was provided to his office in a fax that went out at 5.34 this afternoon. Had the hon. Gentleman put in his request in good time, we might have been able to get him more information, and more complete information. As it was, I had to make sure that the information that had been provided to me was properly and fully checked. We were not sure whether some of the information provided by the county council was entirely accurate, so we wanted to check that, too.
	Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was provided with information. As someone who has occupied ministerial office in the past, he should know that it takes more than 24 hours to get a complex set of questions answered. Now I will give way to him, and will perhaps hear his explanation and apology.

James Paice: There are words that one is not allowed to use in this House, but if I were, I would use them. What the Minister is suggesting is totally untrue. On Monday, my office telephoned the Highways Agency in the morning, and subsequently rang and asked for written confirmation, to which he has referred. This afternoon, his office—I could name the individual in his office, but I will not—stated clearly to me that he had personally ruled that the information could not be released to me because of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That is absolutely clear.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members of "Erskine May". The words "good temper and moderation" come to mind, so perhaps they will bear them in mind.

David Jamieson: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman when the information was sent in writing. In fact, what I asked to be conveyed to him was that we could not provide the information until we had checked its accuracy. Fortunately, that was done later in the afternoon and it was then given to him. He was told that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there could be a delay of up to 20 days before he received it. I hope that I have clarified what happened, for the benefit of the House.
	The A14 was established as a trunk road in 1994 following completion of a new high-standard dual carriageway between the M1 and M6 junction at Catthorpe and Huntingdon. It is a route of strategic national importance, connecting the midlands with the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. As the House will know, it is a mixture of dual two-lane and dual three-lane carriageway and has a variety of junction types, some with flyovers and some without. Congestion at peak hours at the Milton and Histon junctions caused by traffic queuing into Cambridge affects A14 through-movements. Average daily traffic flows on the A14 in Cambridgeshire range from 40,000 at Ellington to 72,000 between the St. Ives interchange and Bar Hill.
	We are concerned about the casualty rate on the A14. Records for the period 2002–04 show an average of 200 personal injury accidents per year. Although the number of accidents is relatively high—any accident is unacceptable—the rate is below the national average for similar dual carriageway. That said, I do recognise that any accident is regrettable and involves human misery.
	Following the Government's strategic review of the roads programme in 1998, we announced our intention to carry out a study of the problems on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study—known as CHUMMS—reported in August 2001. The East of England local government conference, the predecessor to the East of England regional assembly, concluded that the preferred plan was consistent with the emerging regional transport strategy for the east of England and represented an integrated package that should form the basis for resolution of transportation problems in the corridor. The Government accepted the Conference's view that the package was a sound basis for pursuing integrated transport solutions, and asked the Highways Agency to take forward the recommended A14 improvement scheme.
	The multi-million pound A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement was added to the Government's targeted programme of improvements in April 2003. I should remind the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire, for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) that this scheme includes the widening of the A14 between the M11 and the A10, and that such a scheme was withdrawn by the previous Conservative Government in 1996. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said with mock indignation that the situation is a disgrace, but if his party were in government, there would be no such scheme at all. The 2004 spending review has confirmed that the scheme is of national importance and will be progressed for future construction.
	But there is much that we are doing in the short term, and the Highways Agency is also doing a lot to improve safety. Measures to improve traffic signing and white lining are programmed for completion before the end of this March. Such measures, combined with the installation of closed circuit television cameras and incident detection equipment—the latter has already been installed—are elements of the CHUMMS preferred plan. The agency is also in the early stages of planning other safety improvements for later in the year, including a further extension of the existing CCTV coverage.
	The Highways Agency has also undertaken in-depth analysis of the accidents at the Spittals and Brampton Hut junctions, and it is developing short-term and medium-term measures to reduce the number of crashes at these locations. A scheme to provide improved traffic signs and road markings at the Spittals interchange is programmed to commence later this month; it will take about a week to complete. That will be complemented in 2005–06 by the installation of traffic signals, which will bring safety and journey time benefits. Many other improvements are being made to that stretch of road, but I do not have time to expand on them this evening.
	Following a tragic accident on the A14 last year, the chief constable of Cambridgeshire asked representatives of the Highways Agency to travel the A14 with him and undertake an audit to address safety issues and driver behaviour. In September 2004, the agency assisted Cambridgeshire police in a multi-agency operation to monitor safe driving practice along that section of the A14. Special patrols spent a week monitoring drivers in a bid to put a stop to tailgating, needless overtaking and other offences involving mobile phones and seat belts. That survey exposed many instances of poor driving behaviour.
	Returning to the Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement, I acknowledge the support for the scheme, but whatever the level of support, it is important to ensure that all opinions are properly invited and considered. Hon. Members will be aware that as a result of consultations with local authorities in preparation for the public consultation about the scheme, an alternative proposal, which differs from the strategy proposed by CHUMMS, has been suggested by the residents of Buckden in the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: No.
	One reason why the delay has occurred is that we have listened to local residents and are examining the alternatives. The alternative proposal would retain the existing A14 past Huntingdon operating as a dual carriageway trunk road with a new route from Fenstanton to Ellington as a two-lane dual carriageway. The net effect would be to provide four lanes in total in each direction, instead of the three provided by the CHUMMS option.
	An initial examination of the alternative proposal has concluded that it is essential that its merits and impacts are fully and properly assessed. At an early stage, CHUMMS assumed that the existing A14 past Huntingdon would carry local traffic only. I believe that it is important that work at this stage is carried out in sufficient detail to enable the proposals put forward for public consultation to be robust and to minimise the risk of lengthier delays to the scheme later in its programme. Public consultation on proposals for the scheme has therefore been put back a little to allow the Highways Agency time to consider the alternative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has also attended this debate and also takes an interest in that stretch of road. Her representations to my Department have been constructive, however, and instead of taking the churlish approach adopted by Conservative Members, she has been helpful.
	We expect the consultation to start in spring 2005. There has been a great deal of media coverage about the delay to the scheme. When the scheme was added to the targeted programme of improvements, the Highways Agency aimed to start work in 2008–09. That will be difficult to achieve, but the agency has confirmed that it may still be possible. The scheme has not been delayed by the spending review announcement and was always scheduled for delivery in 2008 onwards.
	I am glad that we have had time to expose some of the arguments. Anybody reading the Hansard report of the debate will reflect on the remarks made by Conservative Members—but were they in office, this debate would not need to take place because that road would not be being improved at all, and I am glad to have had an opportunity to put that point on the record.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.